§ Another clause, as amended, further considered—
- "(1) The following regulations shall be observed by any person or persons riding or being upon any bicycle, tricycle, velocipede, or other similar machine, which are in this section included in the expression 'machine': (a) During the period between, one hour after sunset and one hour before sunrise, every person riding or being upon such machine shall carry attached to the machine a lamp which shall be so constructed and placed as to exhibit a light in the direction in which he is proceeding, and so lighted and kept lighted as to afford adequate means of signalling the approach or position of the machine; (b) upon overtaking any cart, carriage, or machine, or any horse, mule, or other beast of burden, or any foot passenger being on or proceeding along the carriage way, every such person shall, within a reasonable distance from and before passing such cart, carriage, or machine, horse, mule, or other beast of burden, or such foot passenger, by sounding a bell or whistle, or otherwise give audible and sufficient warning of the approach of the machine.
- "(2) A council of a county borough may make regulations for regulating the use and speed of machines in the streets and roads within the county borough, and for preventing any nuisance, obstruction, or danger being caused by the same; and the provisions of sections 219 to 223 of the Public Health (Ireland) Act, 1878, with respect to by-laws, shall
175 apply to all regulations made under this section as if the same were by laws authorised by that Act.
- "(3) Any person summarily convicted of offending against the regulations made by this section or any regulations made under the powers by this section conferred shall, for each and every such offence, forfeit and pay any sum not exceeding forty shillings."—(Mr. Serjeant Hemphill.)
§ MR. SERJEANT HEMPHILL (Tyrone, N.)
This clause, Sir, follows this lines of the 85th section of the English Local Government Act. At present there is no law regulating the lighting of bicycles and machines of that character in Ireland, and it is well known that there is no part of Europe in which there are so many bicycles, in proportion to the population, at the present time as there are in Ireland. It used to be said in Dublin, in a slang phrase, that it was "the most car-riding place" in the world. It now may be said to be the most "biking" place in the whole Empire. The two sub-sections are copied from the 85th section. The object of sub-section (a) is to compel riders of bicycles, and vehicles of that sort, to carry lights between one hour after sunset and one hour before sunrise; and the object of the second clause is to compel cyclists to sound a whistle or bell, so as to give notice to foot passengers of their approach. We read every day of the most dreadful accidents occurring to foot passengers through being ridden down by cyclists, especially at night. I do not know what the views of the right honourable Gentleman the Chief Secretary are, but I anticipate that there will be no serious opposition to assimilate the law in England and Ireland in this respect. I do not think I need occupy the time of the House in discussing what is so obviously reasonable—namely, that these machines should have lights, and also bells, by which to give notice of their approach. There is a further provision in the section referred to, enabling large cities and boroughs to make by-laws and regulations governing the speed and use of such vehicles. That also appears to me to be a most useful provision, and I may say that very great interest is taken in the success of this proposal in different parts of Ireland. I understand that some honourable Members of this House are not satisfied with the expense to which cyclists will be put in providing 176 these lights, but I confess that I do not think that that ought to be taken into account at all. It would be only a few shillings, at the very outside, that these lamps and bells would cost, and if persons do indulge in bicycles, and are able to purchase them, I do not think they can complain of having to pay a few shillings in addition, in order to ensure, not only their own safety, but the safety of the general public.
§ MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER (Belfast, W.)
I desire to support the proposal of the honourable and learned Gentleman opposite, and I should like to propose now the Amendment to this clause, which I have on the Paper——
§ MR. SPEAKER
Order, order! The question now is that the clause should be read a second time. The honourable Member may have an opportunity of moving his Amendment after it has been read a second time.
§ MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER
This is not an unimportant or trivial matter, for I believe some millions of persons in the United Kingdom are interested in this matter. The meaning of bringing in an Amendment of this kind is simple. The clause which the right honourable Gentleman has moved is precisely the same as the Statute law of Great Britain at the present time, and it was, as a matter of fact, introduced into the Local Government Bill for England, and became a part of the Statute law. Now, that part of the Statute law is not at all satisfactory, and it has not proved to be the exact solution they desired. It is, therefore, perfectly obvious that some reform in the condition of the law with regard to bicycles in Ireland is essential. The right honourable Gentleman proposes to protect the public who do not use bicycles, and I most cordially support that part of his proposition; but I do hope the right honourable Gentleman who represents the Government on this Bill will allow the existing Statute law of England and of Scotland to be extended to Ireland, as it is a very important matter. If this clause is accepted, as I trust it will be accepted, I think I can give the House conclusive reasons why the Amendment I wish to add to it should also be accepted.
§ MR. J. P. FARRELL (Cavan, W.)
I hope the Chief Secretary will not accept the clause proposed by the right honourable Gentleman the Member for North Tyrone. I do not myself see why we should have a miniature coercion Act imported into this Local Government Bill which is being passed through this House. For my own part, I am not a cyclist. I once tried the experiment of trying to ride, but I was so unfortunate that I did not try it again. I do not think that we should do anything to prevent the spread of cycling among the people of Ireland. It is a healthful exercise, largely availed of throughout the counties of Ireland, and I am not aware that any accident of any serious character has ever resulted from the fact that cyclists did not carry lights and lamps a certain length of time after sunset and before sunrise, or from the fact that they did not blow their whistles or ring their bells. I do not think that there is any place in Ireland where the danger of cycling to the public is anything like what it has been represented to be. I sincerely hope the right hnoourable Gentleman will declare himself against putting into this Bill anything to meet imaginary grievances, which can only have the effect of rendering the work of the county councils cumbersome and impossible of execution. I shall most certainly oppose the Second Reading of this clause, and if the Member for North Tyrone persists in his Motion, I shall vote against it.
MR. T. M. HEALY
I certainly think that this is not the time and place to make a proposal of this kind. My objection to it is a two-fold one. In the first place a proposal of this character should have been brought in at the Committee stage. I may be told that there was no opportunity to bring this in before, but certainly we ought to have had notice that the Government intended to accept it. Anybody with the experience of the honourable and learned Member for North Tyrone——
§ MR. SERJEANT HEMPHILL
I think my honourable and learned Friend has made a mistake. There was an Amendment on the Paper in Committee to precisely the same effect, and by the arrangement which was come to it was suggested that a number of these Amendments should 178 be put in the shape of new clauses. I only mention that as explaining why it now appears as a new clause. This new clause is in precisely the same words as were contained in an Amendment in Committee.
MR. T. M. HEALY
I am aware of that, but we are now dealing with an important matter upon the Report stage. I do say that if this is to be considered the Bill ought to be re-committed, and notice given to us so that we could have an opportunity of discussing this penal clause in Committee. We should have some information in advance from the Government as to whether they intend, if they do intend to accept this proposal, as I am afraid, from the ominous silence of the Chief Secretary, and the fact that he brought in a Bill of the same mischievous character a year ago, that we have some grounds for a lurking suspicion that he is going to accept it. We should have notice of it, for this reason. The first thing I would suggest is that after the word "bicycle" to insert the words "or carriage." We could then discuss the entire question of vehicular traffic, which is practically what it amounts to. The cyclist has just as much right to be protected from being run down as a carriage. Why should I be run down in the dark by a carriage which carries no lamps, or by a car that refuses to carry anything? Carriages with indiarubber tyres are become very popular, and they are becoming noiseless like bicycles; therefore, I think it is essential, if this law is to be applied to one section of the community on wheels it is only right to apply it to all sections. We have had no notice of this because I do not think a penal clause has ever been proposed at the Report stage of a Bill without some notice to the House of the intention of the Government to accept it. That is one of my objections, but there is another. I object to the people of Ireland being fined £100,000 for the benefit of Birmingham manufacturers. There are something like a quarter of a million bicycles in Ireland, and lamps are made at Birmingham, and no lamps are made in Ireland, and no bells are made in Ireland. Now, I believe that no bicyclist, unless he is a fool, rides without a bell, but, generally speaking, lamps are not necessary in Ireland. I would not object to this proposal 179 so much in the case of Dublin or Belfast, and I would not object to cyclists being compelled to carry lights if it is also made to apply to the grocer's cart and the milkman's cart, as well as to every cyclist. But so far as the general country is concerned, you might go ten miles without meeting a car, a cart, or anything what-ever, either on wheels or on legs, in many of the remote parts of the country. Therefore, to legislate for Ireland, as a whole, as if it was all to be treated upon the same basis, is, in my opinion, an absurdity. There may be a case for it in Belfast and Dublin, but there certainly is no case whatever for it in a great many of the rural districts of the country. But in addition to these points I think this view should be considered. If a man is driving a car, or a cart, he is not often injured in case of accidents, although his horse may be injured; but the bicyclist is nearly always injured if anything runs into him. He is riding at his peril, and that is far more than can be said of the man on the car or cart. If you consider the way in which bicyclists are treated as a rule by those in charge of cars or carriages, I venture to say that the necessity for regulations is in the opposite direction, for the danger is rather the other way about. On the magisterial bench in Ireland there seem to be a number of old gouty gentleman who themselves are unable to ride, and they seem to have the very strongest prejudice against any cyclist who happens to be brought before them, and this Amendment will give them a chance of coming down on cyclists in general with a very severe voice. As a matter of fact I do not think that there has been any invention of recent years, for men and women, which has given such excellent and healthy enjoyment to the population. Certainly, as I understand it, this clause might fairly take up five or six days, if it is to be considered in a proper spirit and from a thorough point of view. Why, every line of it is reeking with matter upon which Amendments ought to be moved. If the Government are determined to shut out every other type of vehicle from their consideration, and confine this law to bicycles, then, of course, we shall have a very enjoyable afternoon. But I would ask the Government to remember this: we brought 180 before the House in the Committee stage the very important question of traction engines, and we pointed out that there was some necessity for some provision being made in regard to the cutting up of roads by traction engines, and we showed how, in the county of Cork, a road was thrown out of use from this cause, because the grand jury were unable to do anything more to the road. It appears that a pneumatic tyre is to be put under a penal law, while you allow a traction engine to cut up the roads with impunity. It does appear to me that this is a class of traffic which requires regulating, and you do not propose to give favourable consideration to an Amendment of that kind. This proposal has nothing whatever to do with the scope of the Bill, and it is a proposal to transfer from the grand jury for their existing powers entirely new legislation, not germane to the Measure of the Government, and which ought to be introduced in a special Bill dealing with the subject.
§ MR. DAVITT (Mayo, S.)
Perhaps I may be allowed to point out that there are people in Ireland besides gouty judges who do not ride bicycles, and who cannot afford to buy them, and on behalf of that section of the community I beg to support the adoption of this clause. In deference to what has been said, bicycling has become a kind of tyranny. Now, to draw a comparison between a bicycle and another vehicle in a matter of this kind is ridiculous. A bicycle is absolutely under the control of the rider, and can be stopped whenever the rider pleases. ["No, no!"] Well, it is in 999 cases out of 1,000. With reference to the other vehicles, their construction and character give a warning in the traffic to the walking public, whereas a bicycle does not. I think, Sir, that it is a very reasonable proposal which is contained in this Amendment, to provide that county councils in Ireland shall have the power to give some protection to the non-bicycling portion of the community.
§ MR. BUTCHER (York)
I entirely sympathise with the views expressed by the honourable and learned Member for North Louth in regard to the question that all vehicles should carry lamps, but 181 I do not see why we should not take this opportunity of doing what everybody admits to be the proper thing—namely, to make a provision that bicycles should carry lights now. That is a proviso which I should like to see added to the Bill. But as regards some of the other provisions in the clause I do not know whether the honourable Gentleman realises that if this clause is carried out in its present form it would cause a pandemonium in Ireland. We should have every bicyclist going through a town in Ireland either continuously shouting, or blowing a whistle, or ringing a bell, to the great annoyance of his fellow creatures. If this be part of the law in England, it is one which cannot be enforced, otherwise than by causing us to suffer an intolerable nuisance. Now, what is the law as laid down in the clause? It is that whenever a bicyclist is passing through a town, before he passesany cart, carriage, or machine, or any horse, mule, or other beast of burden, or any foot passenger,he is bound.by sounding a bell or whistle, or otherwise to give audible and sufficient warning of the approach of the machine.I quite agree, if he is in any danger of running over a passenger, or into a cart, that he should give warning, but if he is right away on the other side of the road what is the necessity for blowing his whistle or sounding his bell? I am in favour of some reasonable regulations for bicycles passing through towns so as not to annoy passengers, or horses, or anything else; but to pass it in this form, to say that, whether near or far away, or in such a position as to cause alarm or not, you must blow your whistle or sound your bell, to enforce that in its entirety would reduce towns to a pandemonium. I would, therefore, ask if the right honourable Gentleman intends to accept this Amendment, that it should be modified.
§ MR. TULLY (Leitrim, S.)
I think it is very unfair for the Government to bring in such a penal clause, and to endeavour to rush it through in a Local 182 Government Bill on the Report stage. I happen to be a cyclist myself, and have been one for the last 14 or 15 years, and I know as a rule it is more dangerous in a country like Ireland, where you have not a light on every vehicle, to have a few bicycles carrying lamps than to have no vehicles carrying lamps at all. At present they drive without lamps, and when they are not used to lamps a bicycle lamp flashing along the road at night frightens the horses. I have been frequently knocked off myself in consequence of my lamp frightening horses. I think the present state of affairs is far better than if you are merely to apply this coercion Act to cyclists. If there is to be legislation on lights, I should like it on universal lights, and compel every man who uses a vehicle at night to use a lamp. You have in this House been following the custom of the Continent in your Criminal Evidence Bill, and why not follow the Continental procedure in the case of a coercion Act towards bicycles. In France the costermonger with his barrow has to carry a light, and every vehicle has to carry a light, but there horses are used to lights, and consequently there is not the same danger as there is where these lights are applied simply to bicycles. Then there is the question of the speed of these bicycles. The right honourable Gentleman proposes to restrict the speed of bicycles on roads. I do not think there can be very much complaint in Ireland in this respect. It might be so in England, where you have good roads, where you can ride 16 or 17 miles an hour, but it could not be so in Ireland, where the roads are in a bad condition. I do not think the police should have power to arrest a man simply because of their idea as to the speed at which a bicycle is going. I remember, in the city of London I was arrested myself, and taken up, and the policeman who arrested me told the magistrate that I was riding at 50 miles an hour. I told him that I wished I was able to do so, and that if that was the case I should not be a Member of Parliament any longer. I think it is really not a necessary provision in this Bill. I hope the Government will bring it in as a separate Bill, and give us a chance of debating it clause by clause. There will 183 be time enough before the next general election to pass an Act like that. If you are going to pass an Act like this, make the Bill a universal Bill, and apply it to public vehicles generally, as well as to bicycles, and have the same law as they have at the present time in Continental countries. On these grounds I wish to enter my objection to this clause, and I shall oppose it in every possible way.
§ MR. T. LOUGH (Islington, W.)
I wish to say a word or two upon the point which has been raised, that this is the law which exists in England and Scotland. Now, I know there is a great deal of tyranny in England in reference to regulations of this kind, and the same thing will occur no doubt in Ireland if this clause is passed. A slight offence cannot be disposed of summarily in the village where it has taken place. The name of the offender is taken down in England, and you may have to go 150 miles to attend the cumbrous procedure which has to take place in the case. Now, in some Continental countries where these regulations are enforced, arrangements are made for dealing with your offence in the town where it is committed. The matter is disposed of at once, and the offender, especially if he is a tourist, is put to no great inconvenience. But if a drastic clause of this character, which, I venture to say, is not sufficiently clear, is passed, I believe it will affect the tourist traffic very materially in Ireland. Mr. Speaker, it would be reasonable that a county council should have power to make regulations of this kind, and the second clause gives this power to county councils.
§ MR. LOUGH
Well, I think that would be a judicious compromise. I hope my honourable and learned Friend on the Front Bench will just give a little more consideration to that point. Clause 2 gives everything that is necessary in the concluding part of the clause. The proposed new clause suggests that—A council of a county borough may make regulations.184 I would suggest that it should also provide for the council of a county. It would then read that—A council of a county or county borough may make regulations for regulating the use and speed of machines.That would abbreviate the discussion, and give everything which is necessary.
§ MR. RENTOUL (Down, E.)
There are two sub-clauses—(a) and (b). With regard to sub-clause (a), it seems that there is a concensus of opinion that it would be advantageous if lamps were carried by all vehicles. That is no doubt so, but, at the same time, here is a new species of traffic being introduced, and a new class of vehicle being introduced, and it is a common habit for everyone buying a bicycle to buy a lamp along with it, and this provision would be only forcing a few people who neglect that necessary precaution to do it. With regard to this class of vehicle, it is different to all other vehicles. My honourable and learned Friend the Member for Louth spoke of cars with india-rubber tyres, but the sound of the footfalls of the horses enables the people to hear in nine cases out of ten that something is coming, and therefore, if it is right to have lamps on vehicles of all sorts, why not allow lamps to be brought in here with regard to this new species of vehicle, and then an Act might be passed to compel all vehicles to have lamps. So much for the sub-section (a). But, coming to sub-section (b), that is another matter altogether. With regard to sub-section (a), it is, of course, a totally different thing. A bicycle is a luxury altogether, which costs £14 or £15 to buy, and it is a totally different thing to compel that man to have a lamp than to compel every poor man to put a lamp on his little donkey-cart. Therefore, it is most absurd to ask that lamps should be put on all round if you put them on bicycles. With regard to subsection (b), the honourable and learned Member for Louth spoke of the clause as if it were necessary to have vehicles such as cars, and wagons, and carts, and so on, protected against the bicycle. Surely no vehicles require any protection whatsoever with regard to bicycles. It is quite the other way about, and it 185 seems to me that as far as sounding the bell is concerned in the case of either a cart, carriage, machine, horse, mule, or other beast of burden, the bell is to be sounded for the protection of the bicyclists themselves, and never for the protection of the vehicles, horses, or mules. It is entirely impossible for a bicycle to injure a vehicle, but we know vehicles injure bicycles, and we know they treat bicyclists very badly sometimes, in not affording them opportunities for passing in the road. I confess, Mr. Speaker, that in reference to foot-passengers it is a totally different matter. I agree with the honourable and learned Member for York that if it were possible to enforce it with regard to foot-passehgers it certainly ought to be enforced. I sometimes am on a bicycle myself, and sometimes on a vehicle, but I am very much more frequently on my feet, and I have more interest in foot-passengers than either the bicycle or the person riding in the car or carriage. Now, with regard to the second clause, I think if it were made compulsory to ring the bell in case of passing passengers that it would not be necessary to apply it in all those other cases, as the honourable Member for York pointed out, when going along any village road, because if that condition were imposed you would never cease sounding your bell for one single instant, because you are always passing something, either some horse or vehicle, from start to finish. There are frequently on roads at one and the same time quite a dozen bicycles, and a dozen bells ringing perpetually the whole of the time would be a source of danger, and the drivers would be very confused by the sound of those bells. It is an open question, but many people who have had practical experience, both as foot passengers and bicyclists, say that it is difficult to know whether you should or should not abolish bells altogether, but in my opinion they do more harm in startling people, for people often run in the wrong direction. However, Mr. Speaker, with regard to the first part of the sub-section (a), I do hope that the Government will, at any rate, support the Measure with regard to that question. And, with 186 regard to the second part, I think it might be modified, and might be applied to foot-passengers, and foot-passengers only. The other parts might be left out altogether; then, I think, it would be a beneficial clause for all sections of the community. It does, as I understand it, protect bicyclists and foot-passengers, and it certainly does not aim at protecting carts and cars along the road.
§ MR. GERALD BALFOUR
Perhaps it will be well to state what view the Government take upon this proposal. Sir, it is within the knowledge of the House that a clause almost identical with this was inserted in the Local Government Act of 1888, and I myself last year proposed a Measure embodying, almost verbatim, the same provisions. Under these circumstances, the House will of course see that, so far as the substance of the clause is concerned, the Government have no suggestion or criticism to make against it. Though the question does not appear very germane to introduce in a Local Government Bill, I think that objection is met to a very large extent by the fact that, as a matter of fact, such a clause was introduced into the English Local Government Act. But, Sir, though I take that view of the clause, I did not myself put this clause into the Bill, nor did I put it down as an Amendment subsequently, because what I thought was this: I was aware that there were considerable objections and considerable opposition coming from various Members of the House to the Bill which I put down last year, and I did not wish to encumber the present Local Government Bill with more than was necessary.
§ MR. GERALD BALFOUR
Well, I did not feel justified in inserting in a Bill of great complexity and magnitude a clause which was likely to meet with protracted opposition; and, in view of what has been said this afternoon, I do not feel justified in throwing the weight of the Government influence into the scale in favour of this Amendment, I would suggest a compromise, however, 187 which will meet the case if it is accepted by the right honourable Gentleman, at the conclusion of the clause, which might, I think, serve the purpose for the time being until the Government are afforded an opportunity to introduce a Bill dealing with the whole subject. I would suggest that the debatable provision in the first sub-section should be omitted; that we should retain sub-section 2, with certain alterations, so that the sub-section will read—A council of a county borough may make regulations for regulating the use and speed of tricycles, bicycles, and velocipedes, or other similar machines in the streets and roads within the county borough, and the carriage of lights there, and the warning and approach to be given by the persons using the same.I would suggest that a provision of that sort would not be open to the objections which have been taken to the clause as proposed.
§ MR. GERALD BALFOUR
I cannot agree with the honourable and learned Member for Louth that there should be no distinction drawn in this respect. Other vehicles apparently do give warning by their noise, but the velocipedes are noiseless vehicles, and therefore it is evident that it is desirable to regulate their use. If the clause is adopted in the form I have suggested it will also meet the suggestions of my honourable and learned Friend the Member for York. At the same time I cannot help thinking that as this has been the law of England for a considerable period, and has not given rise to the objections which have been raised, my honourable and learned Friend's observations are somewhat irrelevant. It can also be met by the making of such by-laws as will not involve any change in the circumstances which I have described. I am anxious that the House should not spend more time than is necessary over a clause of this kind, and I venture to suggest to my right honourable Friend that, if he will accept it, the clause may be brought in, which might be passed without opposition from any quarter.
§ MR. SERJEANT HEMPHILL
I would like to ask the right honourable Gentleman whether he will allow all county councils, instead of merely the councils of county boroughs, to make bylaws respecting these matters, because if he would do that I would not hesitate to accept the offer.
§ MR. GERALD BALFOUR
I cannot consent to that, because if you have different by-laws being made in different counties with regard to the carrying of lights, and so forth, I am afraid bicyclists would be often placed in a very awkward position. Such regulations as are made, so far as the counties at large are concerned, should, in my opinion, be uniform.
MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN
said he approached the matter from a bicyclist's point of view, and if the right honourable and learned Gentleman carried his clause to a Division he should vote with him. At the same time he suggested to the right honourable and learned Gentleman that he might accept the compromise, because there was some-thing to be said in favour of having the Government battalions behind one, and it was always better to get something in place of nothing at all. He looked at the question as a bicyclist. He was not in the fortunate position of half the honourable Gentlemen of the House, who, being railway directors, could travel wherever they liked without paying. His only substitute for that was a couple of days in the country on his machine. As a cyclist he supported the right honourable and learned Gentleman for his own protection, and sometimes self-preservation went a long way, even with honourable Members of the House. He did not feel safe in running up against a bus without ringing his bell, nor did he think he had a right to run down people. At the same time, he would not go the length of saying that vehicles in Ireland should be obliged to have a lamp after a certain hour. He thought the clause was necessary for the protection of cyclists, and if the right honourable and learned Gentleman went to a Division he would receive his hearty support.
§ MR. PINKERTON (Galway)
favoured the clause as it stood, for the great reason that it would give employment to the police. He spoke on the part of those interested in dogs, and thought the police would be better employed in looking after cyclists than in hunting unmuzzled dogs. If the right honourable and learned Gentleman went to a Division he would support him.
§ LORD E. FITZMAURICE (Wilts, Cricklade)
remarked that it was admittedly a most interesting discussion, but he pointed out that the Session was nearing its end, and everybody in the House desired to see the Bill become law. He thought his right honourable and learned Friend would be inclined to accept the Amendment offered by the right honourable Gentleman the Chief Secretary, but with guarantees. Before that took place, however, he would like to press upon the Chief Secretary the consideration of the variety of practices which might be expected from the different county councils in regard to the making of the by-laws, supposing that that power was left to them. He would suggest that powers might be given, which had an equivalent in the English Act, whereby the county councils were empowered to make by-laws in
§ connection with various matters, such as lights on carriages, etc., none of which came into force until confirmed by the Home Office, which exercised a very careful supervision in the matter. Whatever was done, there should be uniformity, so that a bicyclist should not find himself in the position of having broken the law upon passing a boundary line, when in the county he had just left he was strictly within his rights.
§ MR. SERJEANT HEMPHILL
said he was willing to accept the compromise suggested by the right honourable Gentleman the Chief Secretary, provided the clause were read a second time.
§ MR. SERJEANT HEMPHILL
I will ask the House to read the clause a second time upon the understanding that I shall then accept the Amendment of the right honourable Gentleman the Chief Secretary.
That the clause be read a second time.
§ The House divided:—Ayes 298; Noes 36.—(Division List No. 189.)193
|Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.||Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.||Chamberlain, J. A. (Worc'r.)|
|Aird, John||Biddulph, Michael||Channing, Francis Allston|
|Allhusen, A. H. E.||Bill, Charles||Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry|
|Arnold, Alfred||Billson, Alfred||Charrington, Spencer|
|Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.||Birrell, Augustine||Clancy, John Joseph|
|Arrol, Sir William||Blundell, Colonel Henry||Cochrane, Hon. T. H. A. E.|
|Ashton, Thomas Gair||Bolitho, Thomas Bedford||Coddington, Sir William|
|Asquith, Rt. Hon. H. H.||Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-||Coghill, Douglas Harry|
|Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John||Boulnois, Edmund||Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse|
|Austin, M. (Limerick, W.)||Broadhurst, Henry||Colomb, Sir J. C. Ready|
|Bagot, Capt. J. FitzRoy||Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John||Colville, John|
|Bailey, James (Walworth)||Brookfield, A. Montagu||Condon, Thomas Joseph|
|Baird, J. G. Alexander||Butcher, John George||Cook, F. Lucas (Lambeth)|
|Balcarres, Lord||Caldwell, James||Cooke, C. W. R. (Hereford)|
|Baldwin, Alfred||Cameron, Sir C. (Glasgow)||Courtney, Rt. Hon. L. H.|
|Balfour, Rt. Hn. A.J. (Manch'r)||Cameron, R. (Durham)||Cox, Robert|
|Balfour, Rt. Hon. G.W. (Leeds)||Campbell, J. H. M. (Dublin)||Cranborne, Viscount|
|Banbury, Frederick George||Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.||Crean, Eugene|
|Banes, Major G. E.||Carew, James Laurence||Cripps, Charles Alfred|
|Barnes, Frederic Gorell||Carlile, William Walter||Crombie, John William|
|Barry, Rt. Hn. A.H. Smith-(Hunts)||Carmichael, Sir T. D. G.||Cross, H. Shepherd (Bolton)|
|Barry, F. T. (Windsor)||Carvill, Patrick G. Hamilton||Curran, Thomas B. (Donegal)|
|Bartley, George C. T.||Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs)||Curran, Thomas (Sligo, S.)|
|Barton, Dunbar Plunket||Cavendish, V.C.W.(Derbysh.)||Curzon, RtHnG.N.(Lanc., SW)|
|Bathurst, Hon. A. Benjamin||Cawley, Frederick||Curzon, Viscount (Bucks)|
|Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir M.H. (Brist'l)||Cecil, E. (Hertford, E.)||Dalbiac, Colonel P. H.|
|Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.||Chaloner, Captain R. G. W.||Dalrymple, Sir Charles|
|Beckett, Ernest William||Chamberlain, Rt.Hn.J.(Birm.)||Daly, James|
|Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan)||Hutton, A. E. (Morley)||Pease, A. (Darlington)|
|Davitt, Michael||Jeffreys, Arthur F.||Pease, J. A. (Northumb.)|
|Denny, Colonel||Jenkins, Sir John Jones||Perks, Robert William|
|Dillon, John||Johnston, William (Belfast)||Phillpotts, Captain Arthur|
|Donelan, Captain A.||Jolliffe, Hon. H. George||Pickersgill, Edward Hare|
|Doogan, P. C.||Jones, W. (Carnarvonshire)||Pierpoint, Robert|
|Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers||Jordan, Jeremiah||Pinkerton, John|
|Drage, Geoffrey||Kay-Shuttleworth, RtHnSirU.||Plunkett, Rt. Hon. Horace C.|
|Drucker, A.||Kearley, Hudson E.||Powell, Sir Francis Sharp|
|Duncombe, Hon. H. V.||Kimber, Henry||Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. E.|
|Dunn, Sir William||Kitson, Sir James||Purvis, Robert|
|Edwards, Gen. Sir J. B.||Knowles, Lees||Rankin, Sir James|
|Esmonde, Sir Thomas||Lafone, Alfred||Rasch, Major Frederic Carne|
|Fardell, Sir T. George||Langley, Batty||Redmond, J. E. (Waterford)|
|Fellowes, Hon. A. Edward||Laurie, Lt.-General||Redmond, Wm. (Clare)|
|Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Manc'r)||Lawson, Sir W. (Cumberland)||Rentoul, James Alexander|
|Field, Admiral (Eastbourne)||Lecky, Rt. Hn. W. E. H.||Richards, Henry Charles|
|Field, William (Dublin)||Lees, Sir E. (Birkenhead)||Richardson, J. (Durham)|
|Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne||Legh, Hon. T. W. (Lancs)||Ridley, Rt. Hon. Sir M. W.|
|Fisher, William Hayes||Leighton, Stanley||Ritchie, Rt. Hon. C. T.|
|FitzGerald, Sir R. Penrose-||Leng, Sir John||Robertson, E. (Dundee)|
|Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond||Leuty, Thomas Richmond||Robertson, H. (Hackney)|
|Flavin, Michael Joseph||Lewis, John Herbert||Rothschild, Baron F. J. de|
|Fletcher, Sir Henry||Llewelyn, Sir Dillwyn-(Sw'ns'a)||Round, James|
|Flynn, James Christopher||Lloyd-George, David||Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)|
|Folkestone, Viscount||Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.||Samuel, H. S. (Limehouse)|
|Forwood, Rt. Hon. Sir A. B.||Loder, G. W. Erskine||Saunderson, Col. Edw. J.|
|Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir H.||Long, Col. C. W. (Evesham)||Savory, Sir Joseph|
|Fox, Dr. Joseph Francis||Long, Rt. Hon. W. (Liverp'l)||Schwann, Charles E.|
|Fry, Lewis||Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller||Scoble, Sir Andrew Richard|
|Galloway, William Johnson||Lorne, Marquess of||Seton-Karr, Henry|
|Garfit, William||Lowles, John||Sharpe, William E. T.|
|Gedge, Sydney||Loyd, Archie Kirkman||Shaw-Stewart, M.H. (Renfrew)|
|Gibbons, J. Lloyd||Lubbock, Rt. Hon. Sir J.||Sidebottom, Wm. (Derbysh.)|
|Gilhooly, James||Macaleese, Daniel||Simeon, Sir Barrington|
|Goddard, Daniel Ford||MacDonnell, Dr. MA (Qu'n'sC)||Sinclair, Capt. J. (Forfarsh.)|
|Gordon, Hon. J. E.||MacNeill, John G. Swift||Soames, Arthur Wellesley|
|Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir J. E.||McCalmont, Mj-Gn. (Ant'm,N.)||Spicer, Albert|
|Goschen, Rt. Hn. G. J. (St. G'rg's)||McEwan, William||Stanley, Lord (Lancs)|
|Goschen, G. J. (Sussex)||McIver, Sir Lewis||Stanley, E. J. (Somerset)|
|Goulding, Edward Alfred||McKillop, James||Stanley, H. M. (Lambeth)|
|Gray, Ernest (West Ham)||Maddison, Fred.||Steadman, William Charles|
|Greene, H. D. (Shrewsbury)||Mandeville, J. Francis||Stirling-Maxwell, Sir J. M.|
|Greene, W. R. (Cambs)||Maple, Sir John Blundell||Stock, James Henry|
|Grey, Sir E. (Berwick)||Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe||Stone, Sir Benjamin|
|Gull, Sir Cameron||Marks, Henry H.||Strachey, Edward|
|Haldane, Richard Burdon||Mellor, Colonel (Lancashire)||Sturt, Hon. Humphry N.|
|Halsey, Thomas Frederick||Mendl, Sigismund Ferdinand||Tennant, Harold John|
|Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord G.||Milward, Colonel Victor||Tomlinson, W. E. Murray|
|Hammond, John (Carlow)||Monk, Charles James||Tritton, Charles Ernest|
|Hamond, Sir C. (Newcastle)||Montagu, Sir S. (Whitechapel)||Wallace, Robert (Perth)|
|Hanbury, Rt. Hon. R. W.||Moon, Edward Robert Pacy||Ward, Hon. R. A. (Crewe)|
|Hardy, Laurence||More, Robert Jasper||Wayman, Thomas|
|Hare, Thomas Leigh||Morgan, Hn. F. (Monm'thsh.)||Welby, Lt.-Col. A. C. E.|
|Haslett, Sir James Horner||Morris, Samuel||Wharton, Rt. Hon. J. L.|
|Hayden, John Patrick||Morrison, Walter||Williams, John C. (Notts)|
|Hayne, Rt. Hon. C. Seale-||Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)||Williams, J. Powell (Birm.)|
|Helder, Augustus||Murnaghan, George||Willox, Sir John Archibald|
|Hemphill, Rt. Hon. C. H.||Murray, Col. W. (Bath)||Wilson, H. J. (York, W.R.)|
|Henderson, Alexander||Myers, William Henry||Wodehouse, E. R. (Bath)|
|Hill, Rt. Hn. Lord A. (Down)||Newark, Viscount||Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm|
|Hoare, E. B. (Hampstead)||Newdigate, Francis Alexander||Woodhouse, Sir JT (Hudd'rsf'ld)|
|Hoare, Samuel (Norwich)||Nicol, Donald Ninian|
|Hobhouse, Henry||Norton, Capt. C. William||Wortley, Rt. Hon. C.B. Stuart-|
|Holburn, J. G.||Nussey, Thomas Willans||Wylie, Alexander|
|Holden, Sir Angus||O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)||Wyndham-Quin, Maj. W. H.|
|Holland, Hon. L. R.||O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary)||Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong|
|Hornby, William Henry||O'Kelly, James||Young, S. (Cavan, E.)|
|Horniman, Frederick John||Oldroyd, Mark||Yoxall, James Henry|
|Howell, William Tudor||O'Neill, Hon. R. T.|
|Hubbard, Hon. Evelyn||Orr-Ewing, Charles L.||TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.|
|Hudson, George Bickersteth||Paulton, James Mellor|
|Humphreys-Owen, A. C.||Pease, A. E. (Cleveland)|
|Allan, William (Gateshead)||McLeod, John||Thomas, A. (Glamorgan, E.)|
|Allen, Wm. (Newc.-under-L.)||Molloy, Bernard Charles||Thomas, D. A. (Merthyr)|
|Bainbridge, Emerson||O'Connor, J. (Wicklow, W.)||Tuite, James|
|Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn||Power, Patrick Joseph||Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)|
|Crilly, Daniel||Price, Robert John||Warner, Thomas C. T.|
|Farrell, J. P. (Cavan, W.)||Provand, Andrew Dryburgh|
|Gourley, Sir E. Temperley||Reid, Sir Robert T.||Wedderburn, Sir William|
|Healy, Maurice (Cork)||Robson, William Snowdon||Whittaker, Thomas Palmer|
|Jacoby, James Alfred||Roche, Hon. J. (E. Kerry)||Wilson, John (Govan)|
|Jones, David B. (Swansea)||Shaw, Charles E. (Stafford)|
|Labouchere, Henry||Souttar, Robinson||TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. T. M. Healy and Mr. Tully.|
|Llewellyn, E. H. (Somerset)||Stanhope, Hon. Philip J.|
|McDermott, Patrick||Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)|
|M'Hugh, E. (Armagh, S.)||Sullivan, T. D. (Donegal, W.)|
To leave out sub-section (1) of the proposed clause reading as under—
During the period between one hour after sunset and one hour before sunrise every person riding or being upon such machine shall carry attached to the machine a lamp, which shall be so constructed and placed as to exhibit a light in the direction in which he is proceeding, and so lighted and kept lighted as to afford adequate means of signalling the approach or position of the machine."—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
MR. T.M. HEALY
said the Government had announced at the commencement that the clause would not receive their support. The right honourable Gentleman had distinctly stated that he was not prepared to throw in the weight of the Government in support of it, and asked the right honourable and learned Gentleman the Member for North Tyrone, to accept a modified proposal. The right honourable and learned Member for North Tyrone, in his wisdom, had not seen fit to accept the Amendment. He did not accept the proposal to withdraw the clause.
§ MR. SERJEANT HEMPHILL
I think the honourable Gentleman misunderstood me. I distinctly stated, and intended to convey, that I accepted what the right honourable Gentleman said.
MR. T. M. HEALY
said, as he understood, the right honourable Gentleman 194 certainly intimated that he was not prepared to throw in the weight of the Government in favour of the clause. He was unable to support the clause as a whole, and, not being able to support the clause as a whole, it devolved upon the right honourable and learned Member for North Tyrone to bring it in as a new clause. Had that been done honourable Members of the House would have been in the position of being able to bring in Amendments upon it. But the result of what had taken place was that a new clause was sprung upon the House by Her Majesty's Government without time being given for its consideration so far as the House was concerned. It was one thing for Her Majesty's Government to bring in a new clause of a non-contentious character, but quite a different thing for a private Member's clause to become a Government clause in the manner in which this clause had without the House having an opportunity of discussing it. For his part, he should oppose it to the utmost of his power.
§ MR. SPEAKER
Order, order! The question is not the clause, but whether some portion of it shall or shall not stand part of the clause.
MR. T. M. HEALY
said he wished to point out that they were told it was necessary to pass the clause in order to protect the public from the infamous cyclists. Either the clause as a whole was necessary or it was not. For his part he did not see why the House should pass the clause. The suggestion was that it was absolutely necessary, and the honourable Gentleman who supported the 195 proposal that during the period between one hour after sunset and one hour before sunrise every person riding a bicycle was to have a lamp, and who went with such enthusiasm into the Lobby to support that proposal, were now, he assumed, going to vote the very reverse. If that was so, what was the object of the right honourable Gentleman's proposal? Was the legislation, he respectfully asked, to lose the provision that upon overtaking any cart, carriage, or machine, and before passing such carriage, machine, horse, mule, or beast of burden, everyone was to sound his bell or whistle, or otherwise give sufficient warning of the approach of his machine? Was that to be lost? Was it not on the faith of a proposal such as that that his honourable and learned Friend received the enthusiastic approval of Members of these benches? The position was that all through Ireland, except in these six county boroughs, there was to be no protection of human life from bicycles. Was it to depend upon the question whether one lived in a county borough or not? It would be very unfortunate for his honourable Friend the Member for Tyrone or the Member for Galway. That showed the absolute necessity for this clause. But if a man like himself lived in a county borough was he to get protection which others did not? He offered his deep sympathy to the Government for the predicament in which they were placed, and he appealed to the Government to admit that the position was a reasonable one in regard to the objection. The House had had no notice of this except the undigested and ill-considered provision which the honourable Gentleman had brought forward, he was rather afraid, in collusion with Her Majesty's Government; because, as Lord Randolph
§ Churchill once observed, "if you see the two Front Benches in collusion look out for squalls." It was a great pity that the Government itself did not claim the paternity of this as their own proposal, and then they would have known exactly how they stood. It appeared to him that a clause of that sort, that the Government was proposing to omit, was the very one which was the raison d'être of that part of the legislation. It would give him great pleasure to go into the Lobby in order to get this clause in the Bill for the protection of human life in Ireland. He hoped the honourable Member for North Tyrone and others would rise to the occasion and go into the Lobby in support of the proposal to protect human life against bicycles.
§ MR. FLYNN (Cork, N.)
said he was one of those who went into the Lobby, and he thought he was voting for sub-section 2 of this clause. He did not quite understand where he was. He hoped the Government would throw a little light on the subject, so that when they were going into the Lobby the next time they might know what they were doing. In supporting the Government he was merely supporting sub-section 2, which gave to county boroughs a power which, in his opinion, they had now. They had it in Cork. He would vote for the subsection.
That sub-section (1) stand part of the proposed clause.
§ The House divided:—Ayes 61; Noes 279.—(Division List No. 190.)199
|Allan, William (Gateshead)||Dunn, Sir Wiliam||Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick|
|Atherley-Jones, L.||Esmonde, Sir Thomas||Jones, D. B. (Swansea)|
|Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.||Farquharson, Dr. Robert||Kearley, Hudson E.|
|Billson, Alfred||Farrell, J. P. (Cavan, W.)||Lloyd-George, David|
|Caldwell, James||Field, William (Dublin)||Lough, Thomas|
|Cameron, Sir Charles (Glasg.)||Flavin, Michael Joseph||Macaleese, Daniel|
|Carew, James Laurence||Fox, Dr. Joseph Francis||McDermott, Patrick|
|Cawley, Frederick||Gourley, Sir E. Temperley||McKenna, Reginald|
|Clancy, John Joseph||Hayden, John Patrick||McLeod, John|
|Crilly, Daniel||Healy, Maurice (Cork)||Mendl, Sigismund Ferdinand|
|Curran, T. B. (Donegal)||Hobhouse, Henry||Molloy, Bernard Charles|
|Doogan, P. C.||Jacoby, James Alfred||Morris, Samuel|
|Morton, E. J. C. (Devonport)||Redmond, William (Clare)||Thomas, D. A. (Merthyr)|
|Norton, Capt. Cecil Wm.||Reid, Sir Robert T.||Tuite, James|
|O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)||Robson, William Snowdon||Warner, Thomas C. T.|
|O'Connor, J. (Wicklow, W.)||Roche, Hon. J. (E. Kerry)||Wilson, John (Govan)|
|O'Kelly, James||Shaw, Charles E. (Stafford)||Yoxall, James Henry|
|Pease, A. E. (Cleveland)||Stanhope, Hon. Philip J.|
|Pinkerton, John||Strachey, Edward||TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. T. M. Healy and Mr. Tully.|
|Price, Robert John||Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)|
|Provand, Andrew Dryburgh||Sullivan, T. D. (Donegal, W.)|
|Redmond, J. E. (Waterford)||Thomas, A. (Glamorgan, E.)|
|Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.||Colomb, Sir J. C. Ready||Haldane, Richard Burdon|
|Aird, John||Colville, John||Halsey, Thomas Frederick|
|Allhusen, Augustus Henry E.||Condon, Thomas Joseph||Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord G.|
|Arnold, Alfred||Cook, F. Lucas (Lambeth)||Hammond, John (Carlow)|
|Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.||Cooke, C. W. R. (Hereford)||Hamond Sir C. (Newcastle)|
|Arrol, Sir William||Courtney, Rt. Hon. L. H.||Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert W.|
|Ashton, Thomas Gair||Cox, Robert||Hardy, Laurence|
|Asquith, Rt. Hon. H. H.||Cranborne, Viscount||Hare, Thomas Leigh|
|Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John||Crean, Eugene||Haslett, Sir James Horner|
|Austin, M. (Limerick, W.)||Cripps, Charles Alfred||Hayne, Rt. Hon. C. Seale-|
|Bagot, Capt. J. FitzRoy||Crombie, John William||Heaton, John Henniker|
|Bailey, James (Walworth)||Cross, H. Shepherd (Bolton)||Helder, Augustus|
|Bainbridge, Emerson||Curran, Thomas (Sligo, S.)||Hemphill, Rt. Hon. C. H.|
|Baird, John George A.||Curzon, Rt. Hn. GN. (Lanc, S.W.)||Henderson, Alexander|
|Balcarres, Lord||Curzon, Viscount (Bucks)||Hill, Rt. Hn. Lord A. (Down)|
|Baldwin, Alfred||Dalbiac, Colonel Philip Hugh||Hill, Sir Edward S. (Bristol)|
|Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (Manc'r)||Daly, James||Hoare, E. B. (Hampstead)|
|Balfour, Rt. Hon. G.W. (Leeds)||Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan)||Hoare, Samuel (Norwich)|
|Banbury, Frederick George||Davitt, Michael||Holburn, J. G.|
|Banes, Major George E.||Denny, Colonel||Holden, Sir Angus|
|Barnes, Frederic Gorell||Dillon, John||Holland, Hon. Lionel R.|
|Barry, Rt. Hn. A.H. Smith-(Hunts)||Donelan, Captain A.||Horniman, Frederick John|
|Barry, Francis T. (Windsor)||Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-||Howard, Joseph|
|Bartley, George C. T.||Drage, Geoffrey||Howell, William Tudor|
|Barton, Dunbar Plunket||Drucker, A.||Hubbard, Hon. Evelyn|
|Bathurst, Hon. A. Benjamin||Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V.||Hudson, George Bickersteth|
|Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir M.H. (Brist'l)||Edwards, Gen. Sir J. B.||Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)|
|Beach, W. W. B. (Hants)||Fardell, Sir T. George||Jenkins, Sir John Jones|
|Beckett, Ernest William||Fellowes, Hon. A. Edward||Johnston, William (Belfast)|
|Biddulph, Michael||Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Manc'r)||Jolliffe, Hon. H. George|
|Bill, Charles||Field, Admiral (Eastbourne)||Jones, W. (Carnarvonshire)|
|Birrell, Augustine||Finlay, Sir R. Bannatyne||Jordan, Jeremiah|
|Blake, Edward||Fisher, William Hayes||Kay-Shuttleworth, Rt. Hn. Sir U.|
|Blundell, Colonel Henry||Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond||Kitson, Sir James|
|Bolitho, Thomas Bedford||Fletcher, Sir Henry||Knowles, Lees|
|Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-||Flynn, James Christopher||Lafone, Alfred|
|Boulnois, Edmund||Folkestone, Viscount||Laurie, Lieut.-General|
|Broadhurst, Henry||Forwood, Rt. Hon. Sir A. B.||Lawson, Sir W. (Cumberland)|
|Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John||Foster, Colonel (Lancaster)||Lecky, Rt. Hon. W. E. H.|
|Brookfield, A. Montagu||Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry||Lees, Sir E. (Birkenhead)|
|Butcher, John George||Fry, Lewis||Leighton, Stanley|
|Buxton, Sydney Charles||Galloway, William Johnson||Leng, Sir John|
|Cameron, R. (Durham)||Garfit, William||Leuty, Thomas Richmond|
|Campbell, J. H. M. (Dublin)||Gedge, Sydney||Llewellyn, E. H. (Somerset)|
|Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.||Gibbons, J. Lloyd||Llewelyn, Sir Dillwyn-(Sw'ns'a)|
|Carlile, William Walter||Gibbs, Hon. V. (St. Albans)||Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.|
|Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs)||Gilhooly, James||Loder, G. W. Erskine|
|Cavendish, V.C.W. (Derbysh.)||Goddard, Daniel Ford||Long, Col. C. W. (Evesham)|
|Cecil, Lord H. (Greenwich)||Godson, Sir Augustus F.||Long, Rt. Hon. W. (Liverp'l)|
|Chaloner, Captain R. G. W.||Gordon, Hon. John Edward||Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller|
|Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm.)||Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir J. E.||Lorne, Marquess of|
|Chamberlain, J. A. (Worc'r)||Goschen, Rt. Hn. G.J. (St. Geo's)||Lowles, John|
|Channing, Francis Allston||Goschen, G. J. (Sussex)||Loyd, Archie Kirkman|
|Charrington, Spencer||Goulding, Edward Alfred||Lubbock, Rt. Hon. Sir John|
|Clarke, Sir E. (Plymouth)||Greene, W. Raymond- (Cambs)||Lucas-Shadwell, William|
|Cochrane, Hon. T. H. A. E.||Gretton, John||Lyell, Sir Leonard|
|Coddington, Sir William||Grey, Sir Edward (Berwick)||MacDonnell, Dr.M.A.(Qn's C.)|
|Coghill, Douglas Harry||Gull, Sir Cameron||MacNeill, John Gordon S.|
|Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse||Gunter, Colonel||McEwan, William|
|McIver, Sir Lewis||Pickersgill, Edward Hare||Stanley, E. J. (Somerset)|
|McKillop, James||Pierpoint, Robert||Stanley, H. M. (Lambeth)|
|Maddison, Fred.||Pirie, Duncan V.||Steadman, William Charles|
|Mandeville, J. Francis||Plunkett, Rt. Hon. H. C.||Stirling-Maxwell, Sir J. M.|
|Maple, Sir John Blundell||Priestley, Sir W. O. (Edin.)||Stock, James Henry|
|Marks, Henry Hananel||Pryce-Jones, Col. Edward||Stone, Sir Benjamin|
|Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W.F.||Purvis, Robert||Sturt, Hon. Humphry N.|
|Mellor, Colonel (Lancashire)||Quilter, Sir Cuthbert||Tennant, Harold John|
|Milton, Viscount||Rankin, Sir James||Tomlinson, W. E. Murray|
|Milward, Colonel Victor||Rasch, Major Frederic Carne||Tritton, Charles Ernest|
|Monk, Charles James||Renshaw, Charles Bine||Wallace, Robert (Perth)|
|Montagu, Sir S. (Whitechapel)||Rentoul, James Alexander||Walton, J. L. (Leeds, S.)|
|Moon, Edward Robert Pacy||Richards, Henry Charles||Walton, J. (Barnsley)|
|More, Robert Jasper||Richardson, J. (Durham)||Ward, Hon. R. A. (Crewe)|
|Morgan, Hn. F. (Monm'thsh.)||Ridley, Rt. Hon. Sir M. W.||Warkworth, Lord|
|Morrison, Walter||Ritchie, Rt. Hon. C. T.||Wayman, Thomas|
|Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)||Robertson, H. (Hackney)||Wedderburn, Sir William|
|Mount, William George||Rothschild, Baron F. J. de||Welby, Lt.-Col. A. C. E.|
|Murnaghan, George||Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)||Wharton, Rt. Hon. J. Lloyd|
|Murray, Rt. Hn. A. G. (Bute)||Samuel, H. S. (Limehouse)||Whitmore, Charles Algernon|
|Murray, Col. W. (Bath)||Saunderson, Col. E. James||Whittaker, Thomas Palmer|
|Myers, William Henry||Savory, Sir Joseph||Williams, J. C. (Notts)|
|Newdigate, Francis Alexander||Schwann, Charles E.||Williams, J. Powell (Birm.)|
|Nicol, Donald Ninian||Scoble, Sir Andrew Richard||Willox, Sir John Archibald|
|Northcote, Hon. Sir H. S.||Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)||Wodehouse, E. R. (Bath)|
|Nussey, Thomas Willans||Seton-Karr, Henry||Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm|
|O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary)||Sharpe, William Edward T.||Woodhouse, Sir J.T. (H'dd'rsf'ld)|
|Oldroyd, Mark||Shaw-Stewart, M.H. (Renfrew)||Wortley, Rt. Hn. C. B. Stuart-|
|O'Neill, Hon. Robert T.||Sidebottom, W. (Derbysh.)||Wylie, Alexander|
|Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay||Simeon, Sir Barrington||Wyndham-Quin, Maj. W. H.|
|Paulton, James Mellor||Sinclair, Capt. J. (Forfarsh.)||Yerburgh, Robt. Armstrong|
|Pease, Arthur (Darlington)||Soames, Arthur Wellesley||Young, Samuel (Cavan, E.)|
|Pease, J. A. (North'mberland)||Souttar, Robinson||TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.|
|Perks, Robert William||Spicer, Albert|
|Phillpotts, Captain Arthur||Stanley, Lord (Lancs)|
To leave out the words 'a county borough, and insert the words 'an urban district' instead thereof."—(Mr. T. M. Healy.)
MR. T. M. HEALY
I move the Amendment on this ground. The Dublin police, Mr. Speaker, have at this moment in the metropolitan district a right by Statute to regulate the speed of particular vehicles. Now, Sir, I am amazed at Her Majesty's Government proposing to deprive the Dublin police, an important body as they are, by this clause, of the powers which they now have under the Act of the 6th Victoria. I must, Mr. Speaker, describe this is an ill-digested clause, and I venture to say that those who drew it and those who accept it have not the smallest idea at the present moment of what they are at. Now, Sir, will it be believed that from the Phœnix Park in the north down to Bray in the south the rate of vehicular traffic is already regulated by Statute to eight miles an hour; and that Statute, Mr. Speaker, not only regulate bicycles and outside cars, but four-in-hands and carriages of every class 200 of moving thing that may go upon the road. Sir, the Government, as I understand, now propose to make an implied repeal of that very useful provision, so that it will be possible to have this state of things, that outside the metropolitan district you may be run over by a car going at the rate of ten miles an hour, and inside the metropolitan district the law will be altogether different, so that all over the metropolitan area of Dublin you will have different jurisdiction. At one moment it will be that of the county borough or the corporation of the county and the city, and at another moment it will be the police from the exterior of the metropolitan area; and this glorious result will follow, that in Rathmines you will be under the police, but if you cross the bridge over the canal—presto! you are under the jurisdiction of the corporation. Therefore, you may be under all these different jurisdictions under the noble clause which my right honourable and learned Friend the Member for North Tyrone has drawn, and that is the proposal that Her Majesty's Government, without a moment's consideration, have thought it good to accept. And observe that this clause is to apply to 201 machines. I presume a vehicle includes a machine, and a vehicle has been defined as including anything on wheels, from a car to a perambulator.
MR. T. M. HEALY
Well, Sir, I will not go on further with those points, but already there is by Statute a power in the Dublin Corporation to regulate electric traffic, but they have no such power in regard to other traffic. Bills at this moment are passing through this House for the very purpose of regulating speed, and although for the moment, Mr. Speaker, it might appear that my remarks were not in order, they are in order in this sense, that we are considering what is to be the body to which we are to give these powers. What is the body which is to get these powers? I want to know whether the 6th Victoria is now to be considered as being impliedly repealed, and I expect to get an answer upon that point. Why is the Rathmines citizen to have no protection when the Pembroke citizen has protection? Why is the man of Drumcondra to be at the risk of his life, while the man inside the municipal area is to have ample protection? I ask for a reply on those points. Sir, we all know that there is at this moment a very keen desire for an extension of the borough boundaries of Dublin, and this clause will have this good effect, I may say, in one aspect of it, that it will reduce Dublin to the most ridiculous position under which it will be possible for any city to exist. Because a man living in the metropolitan area of Dublin will, as regards the speed of his vehicle, be under three separate jurisdictions. I do not hesitate to characterise this clause as the most ridiculous clause that has ever been accepted by a Government. It is a clause put down without a moment's thought or consideration, a clause which will be an actual blister on the capital of Ireland, because, as I have pointed out, from the time you leave your house on a machine or a oar, you will never know into what area you are going unless you take a map in your hand, or under what authority you are having your jaunt. Sir, I think the Government ought to postpone this 202 clause. I think I have shown them sufficient reasons for bringing up a well-digested clause. It was the course which originally I humbly submitted to them. Anybody who considers the matter for a moment will see that you may make a mistake, as the present First Lord of the Admiralty found something like ten years ago, when you touch upon questions that will arouse the citizen and make him consider what his position is. Now the Government have arrived at what I call the crux of this Bill. We have not proposed this Amendment. I am very glad to think that no such Amendment has been proposed from these benches. I believed that this Amendment might have been drawn by the Government, but I accept their shake of the head as a repudiation of that suggestion. It must have been a snare laid for them by the front Opposition bench. I have for some time been considering——
MR. T. M. HEALY
Very well, Sir; I will not pursue that topic. There are a great many important questions that have to be considered in this Bill. There is a series of important questions to engage our attention on the remaining clauses of this Measure. This Bill is to be re-committed. Let the Government state before we come to those questions that they will advise with the right honourable and learned Gentleman who in this matter has suddenly assumed the Leadership of Her Majesty's Government. The proper course is that the draughtsman should be consulted, and that we should have well-considered clauses before us. I will go farther, and say that if they do that, I myself will not oppose any well-considered clause brought up upon this question. I am quite willing to admit that in certain of our large cities it is desirable that there should be some regulation dealing with this question, but they should be brought in on the responsibility of the actual administration under which we live in Ireland. Now, Sir, the Government in this matter have snares thrown out to them by the right honourable Gentleman the Member for North Tyrone, and are evidently 203 determined to accept the clause. The action of the Government so far has been one of great disappointment, not to myself, but to some of my honourable Friends upon these benches. I propose to omit the words "council of a county borough," in order to insert "prescribed body." I admit that, on the spur of the moment, my words may be open to exception, and I quite agree that there may be some of my friends who may think it is bad drafting; but how can I, on the spur of the moment, do anything else than I have done—namely, give all the assistance which is in my power for the improvement of this clause? If any honourable Members on this side of the House, who have hitherto given the Government their valuable support, can suggest better words, I shall be very happy to amend my Amendment. If, however, the clause is passed in its present form, its effect will be that it will include Dublin, Belfast, Cork, Limerick, Waterford, and the city of Deny, while freezing outside in the cold will be left the important towns of Galway, Clonmel, Enniskillen, Newry, and other places. It appears to me that, on the whole, a very strong case has been made out for the acceptance of my Amendment. Surely the time has come when we should claim, on behalf of the urban districts, which do not happen to come within the magic circle of county boroughs, the powers which it is now proposed to confer upon them. They are quite as much entitled to have protection from dangerous riders as the inhabitants of other places. As the clause stands it will strike a blow at the Dublin Metropolitan Police, who have hitherto exhibited great fairness in regulating the traffic, and who, I venture to say, are the last persons who ought to come under the spur of the Unionist Government.
MR. T. M. HEALY
There are a number of prescriptions in it, Sir, but with your permission I will move to insert "urban district" for "county borough."
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. ATKINSON,) Londonderry,
It is impossible to accept the Amendment of the honourable and learned Member for North Louth. No difficulty whatever will arise in practice under this clause. The city of Dublin is the only place in which there will be more or less divided authority. The police have power to regulate traffic, but not cyclists; and nothing will be easier than to provide that in Dublin the Chief Commissioner of Police shall approve of the regulations drawn up by the council, so that there shall be no conflict. There is no reason to apprehend, therefore, that any difficulties of boundaries such as were mentioned by the honourable and learned Member for North Louth will arise.
§ MR. SERJEANT HEMPHILL
Mr. Speaker, I should not rise to occupy further time if it were not for the tone of the speech of the honourable and Learned Member for North Louth. I confess that I have been taken rather by surprise that it should be imputed to me that I have laid a snare for Her Majesty's Government, and that I should be charged with being armed with some sort of thorn to plunge into the side of the right honourable Gentleman the Chief Secretary. I cannot sit silently by and be the victim of such insinuations. This is the first time during the course of my not very short life that I have ever been represented as a sort of Parliamentary leprechaun, loving mischief for mischief's sake, and delighting to occupy the time of the House out of "pure cussedness." This clause is a well-considered and perfectly good clause. I, of course, regret that the force of circumstances compels me to abandon the earlier sub-section; in which I placed great faith, but as the clause stands it in no way conflicts with the Act of 6 Victoria. I beg to assure the House that I am in no sort of collusion with the right honourable and learned Gentleman the Attorney General. I do not think it is necessary to insert the words "with the approval of the Chief Commissioner of Police," because we all know when there are public assemblies, public levees, and other gatherings, how the vehicles are to be marshalled in making their way up to the Castle, or in making their way to the Park, or to some other place where 205 assemblies meet. This section will enable the corporation of the city of Dublin and other corporations to make provision for the safety of passengers. It was stated in the course of the Debate that there had been no accidents in Dublin. Why, you hardly take up a morning paper without finding that there are accidents, not only to cyclists——
§ stitute the words "urban district" for "county borough."
§ MR. SERJEANT HEMPHILL
I will not occupy the time of the House any further. I have been led away by bad example into a sort of pleasant fooling on this subject.
§ The House divided:—Ayes, 286; Noes, 62.—(Division List No. 191.)207
|Abraham, Wm. (Cork, N.E.)||Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry||Gilhooly, James|
|Aird, John||Charrington, Spencer||Goddard, Daniel Ford|
|Allhusen, Augustus Henry E.||Chelsea, Viscount||Godson, Sir Augustus F.|
|Arnold, Alfred||Clancy, John Joseph||Gordon, Hon. J. Edward|
|Arrol, Sir William||Clarke, Sir E. (Plymouth)||Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir J. E.|
|Asquith, Rt. Hon. H. H.||Cochrane, Hon. T. H. A. E.||Goschen, Rt. Hn. G. J. (St. G'rg's)|
|Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John||Coddington, Sir William||Goschen, G. J. (Sussex)|
|Austin, M. (Limerick, W.)||Coghill, Douglas Harry||Goulding, Edward Alfred|
|Bagot, Capt, J. FitzRoy||Cohen, Benjamin Louis||Greene, H. D. (Shrewsbury)|
|Bailey, James (Walworth)||Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse||Greene, W. Raymond- (Cambs)|
|Baird, John George A.||Colomb, Sir J. C. Ready||Gretton, John|
|Balcarres, Lord||Colville, John||Grey, Sir E. (Berwick)|
|Baldwin, Alfred||Courtney, Rt. Hon. L. H.||Gull, Sir Cameron|
|Balfour, Rt. Hon. A.J. (Manc'r)||Cox, Robert||Gunter, Colonel|
|Balfour, Rt. Hon. G.W. (Leeds)||Cranborne, Viscount||Haldane, Richard Burdon|
|Banbury, Frederick George||Crean, Eugene||Halsey, Thomas Frederick|
|Barnes, Frederic Gorell||Cripps, Charles Alfred||Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord G.|
|Barry, Rt. Hn. A H Smith- (Hunts)||Crombie, John William||Hamond, Sir C. (Newcastle)|
|Barry, Francis T. (Windsor)||Cross, H. Shepherd (Bolton)||Hanbury, Rt. Hon. R. W.|
|Bartley, George C. T.||Curran, Thomas (Sligo, S.)||Hare, Thomas Leigh|
|Barton, Dunbar Plunket||Curzon, Rt. Hn. G. N. (Lanc, S.W.)||Haslett, Sir James Horner|
|Bathurst, Hon. A. Benjamin||Curzon, Viscount (Bucks)||Hayden, John Patrick|
|Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir M.H. (Brist'l)||Dalbiac, Colonel Philip Hugh||Hayne, Rt. Hon. C. Seale-|
|Beach, W. W. B. (Hants)||Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)||Heaton, John Henniker|
|Beckett, Ernest William||Davitt, Michael||Helder, Augustus|
|Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.||Dillon, John||Hemphill, Rt. Hon. C. H.|
|Biddulph, Michael||Donelan, Captain A.||Henderson, Alexander|
|Bill, Charles||Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-||Hill, Rt. Hn. Lord A. (Down)|
|Birrell, Augustine||Drage, Geoffrey||Hill, Sir Edward S. (Bristol)|
|Blake, Edward||Drucker, A.||Hoare, E. B. (Hampstead)|
|Blundell, Colonel Henry||Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V.||Hoare, Samuel (Norwich)|
|Bolitho, Thomas Bedford||Dunn, Sir William||Hobhouse, Henry|
|Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-||Edwards, Gen. Sir James B.||Hogan, James Francis|
|Boulnois, Edmund||Evans, Sir F. H. (South'ton)||Holburn, J. G.|
|Broadhurst, Henry||Fardell, Sir T. George||Holden, Sir Angus|
|Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John||Fellowes, Hon. A. Edward||Holland, Hon. Lionel Raleigh|
|Brookfield, A. Montagu||Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Manc'r)||Hornby, William Henry|
|Bryce, Rt. Hon. James||Field, Admiral (Eastbourne)||Horniman, Frederick John|
|Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn||Finch, George H.||Howard, Joseph|
|Burns, John||Finlay, Sir R. Bannatyne||Howell, William Tudor|
|Butcher, John George||Fisher, William Hayes||Hubbard, Hon. Evelyn|
|Cameron, Robert (Durham)||FitzGerald, Sir R. Penrose-||Hudson, George Bickersteth|
|Campbell, J. M. H. (Dublin)||Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond||Humphreys-Owen, A. C.|
|Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.||Fletcher, Sir Henry||Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)|
|Carew, James Laurence||Folkestone, Viscount||Jeffreys, Arthur F.|
|Carlile, William Walter||Forster, Henry William||Jenkins, Sir John Jones|
|Carson, Rt. Hon. Edward||Forwood, Rt. Hn. Sir A. B.||Johnston, William (Belfast)|
|Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs)||Foster, Colonel (Lancaster)||Jolliffe, Hon. H. George|
|Cavendish, V.C.W. (Derbysh.)||Fry, Lewis||Jones, W. (Carnarvonshire)|
|Cecil, Lord H. (Greenwich)||Galloway, William Johnson||Kay-Shuttleworth, Rt. Hn. Sir U.|
|Chaloner, Captain R. G. W.||Garfit, William||Kitson, Sir James|
|Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm.)||Gibbons, J. Lloyd||Knowles, Lees|
|Chamberlain, J. A. (Worc'r)||Gibbs, Hon. V. (St. Albans)||Lafone, Alfred|
|Channing, Francis Allston||Giles, Charles Tyrrell||Langley, Batty|
|Laurie, Lieut.-General||Newdigate, Francis Alexander||Spicer, Albert|
|Lawson, J. Grant (Yorks)||Nicol, Donald Ninian||Stanley, Lord (Lancs)|
|Lawson, Sir W. (Cumberland)||Northcote, Hon. Sir H. S.||Stanley, E. J. (Somerset)|
|Lecky, Rt. Hn. W. E. H.||Nussey, Thomas Willans||Stanley, H. M. (Lambeth)|
|Lees, Sir E. (Birkenhead)||O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)||Steadman, William Charles|
|Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie||O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary)||Stirling-Maxwell, Sir J. M.|
|Leuty, Thomas Richmond||Oldroyd, Mark||Stock, James Henry|
|Llewelyn, Sir Dillwyn-(Sw'ns'a)||O'Neill, Hon. Robert T.||Stone, Sir Benjamin|
|Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.||Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay||Sturt, Hon. Humphry N.|
|Loder, G. W. Erskine||Pease, A. E. (Cleveland)||Tennant, Harold John|
|Long, Col. C. W. (Evesham)||Pease, Arthur (Darlington)||Thomas, A. (Glamorgan, E.)|
|Long, Rt. Hon. W. (Liverp'l)||Pickersgill, Edward Hare||Tomlinson, W. E. Murray|
|Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller||Pierpoint, Robert||Tritton, Charles Ernest|
|Lorne, Marquess of||Pirie, Duncan V.||Wallace, Robert (Perth)|
|Lowles, John||Plunkett, Rt. Hon. H. C.||Ward, Hon. R. A. (Crewe)|
|Lowther, Rt. Hon. J. (Kent)||Powell, Sir Francis Sharp||Warkworth, Lord|
|Loyd, Archie Kirkman||Priestley, Sir W. O. (Edin.)||Wayman, Thomas|
|Lucas-Shadwell, William||Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward||Wedderburn, Sir William|
|Lyell, Sir Leonard||Purvis, Robert||Welby, Lt.-Col. A. C. E.|
|MacNeill, John Gordon S.||Quilter, Sir Cuthbert||Wharton, Rt. Hon. J. Lloyd|
|McEwan, William||Rankin, Sir James||Whiteley, H. (Ashton-under-L.)|
|McKillop, James||Rasch, Major Frederic Carne||Whitmore, Charles Algernon|
|Maddison, Fred.||Renshaw, Charles Bine||Whittaker, Thomas Palmer|
|Mandeville, J. Francis||Rentoul, James Alexander||Williams, J. Powell (Birm.)|
|Maple, Sir John Blundell||Richardson, J. (Durham)||Willoughby de Eresby, Lord|
|Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe||Ridley, Rt. Hon. Sir M. W.||Wilson, John (Govan)|
|Marks, Henry H.||Ritchie, Rt. Hon. C. T.||Wodehouse, Edmd. R. (Bath)|
|Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W.F.||Robertson, H. (Hackney)||Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm|
|Mellor, Colonel (Lancashire)||Rothschild, Baron F. J. de||Woodhouse, SirJT(Hudd'rsf'ld)|
|Milton, Viscount||Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)||Woods, Samuel|
|Milward, Colonel Victor||Samuel, H. S. (Limehouse)||Wortley, Rt.Hon.C.B. Stuart-|
|Monk, Charles James||Saunderson, Col. E. James||Wylie, Alexander|
|Montagu, Sir S. (Whitechapel)||Savory, Sir Joseph||Wyndham, George|
|Moon, Edward Robert Pacy||Scoble, Sir Andrew Richard||Wyndham-Quin, Maj. W. H.|
|More, Robert Jasper||Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)||Yerburgh, Robt. Armstrong|
|Morgan, Hn. F. (Monm'thsh.)||Seton-Karr, Henry||Young, Commander (Berks, E.)|
|Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)||Sharpe, William Edward T.||Young, Samuel (Cavan, E.)|
|Mount, William George||Shaw-Stewart, M.H. (Renfrew)||Yoxall, James Henry|
|Muntz, Philip A.||Sidebottom, W. (Derbyshire)|
|Murnaghan, George||Sinclair, Capt. J. (Forfarsh.)||TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.|
|Murray, Rt. Hn. A. G. (Bute)||Smith, A. H. (Christchurch)|
|Murray, Colonel W. (Bath)||Soames, Arthur Wellesley|
|Myers, William Henry||Souttar, Robinson|
|Allan, William (Gateshead)||Healy, Thomas J. (Wexford)||Price, Robert John|
|Ashton, Thomas Gair||Jameson, Major J. Eustace||Provand, Andrew Dryburgh|
|Atherley-Jones, L.||Jones, D. B. (Swansea)||Randell, David|
|Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.||Jordan, Jeremiah||Reid, Sir Robert T.|
|Billson, Alfred||Kearley, Hudson E.||Robson, William Snowdon|
|Brunner, Sir John T.||Lewis, John Herbert||Roche, Hon. J. (E. Kerry)|
|Caldwell, James||Lloyd-George, David||Schwann, Charles E.|
|Cameron, Sir C. (Glasgow)||Lough, Thomas||Shaw, C. E. (Stafford)|
|Cawley, Frederick||Macaleese, Daniel||Strachey, Edward|
|Condon, Thomas Joseph||MacDonnell, Dr. M A (Qu'n's C.)||Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)|
|Crilly, Daniel||M'Hugh, E. (Armagh, S.)||Sullivan, T. D. (Donegal, W.)|
|Curran, T. B. (Donegal)||McKenna, Reginald||Thomas, D. A. (Merthyr)|
|Daly, James||Mendl, Sigismund Ferdinand||Tuite, James|
|Denny, Colonel||Molloy, Bernard Charles||Walton, J. L. (Leeds, S.)|
|Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles||Morris, Samuel||Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)|
|Doogan, P. C.||Morton, E. J. C. (Devonport)||Warner, Thomas C. T.|
|Esmonde, Sir Thomas||Norton, Capt. Cecil William||Wilson, H. J. (Yorks, W.R.)|
|Evans, S. T. (Glamorgan)||O'Connor, Arthur (Donegal)||Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbro')|
|Farrell, J. P. (Cavan, W.)||O'Connor, J. (Wicklow, W.)|
|Flavin, Michael Joseph||Parnell, John Howard||TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. T. M. Healy and Mr. Tully.|
|Hammond, John (Carlow)||Pease, J. A. (Northumb.)|
|Healy, Maurice (Cork)||Pinkerton, John|
Another Amendment proposed—
Line 21, after the word 'the,' omit the words 'use and'"—(Mr. T. M. Healy.)
MR. T. M. HEALY
said he did not know how the Government proposed to regulate the speed of bicycles, but he understood the Government proposed at an early stage of the Bill to introduce the words "bicycle, tricycle, velocipede, or other similar machine." The result, he took it, would be that they would make regulations for the use of the bicycle by one man, and for the use of the tricycle by another. He contended that he ought not to be compelled to use a tricycle if he chose to use a bicycle; or he might want to use a perambulator; but the clause as it was proposed left him no option. Therefore, it did appear to him that these words "the use" in line 21, page 21, were absolutely and utterly superfluous. He trusted his right honourable and learned Friend the Member for North Tyrone would explain the meaning of the term. Was a man to ride a particular saddle, or to use a spring frame? What meaning could they possibly attach
§ to these words: "for regulating the use of a machine." It might mean that they were not to use their machines between one and four o'clock in the afternoon. Or a regulation might be brought in with respect to ladies riding machines. The regulation thus introduced might confine people to the use of their machines in May. They were the strangest words it was ever his experience to see in this qualification. They seemed to have been introduced without the smallest consideration by the right honourable and learned Member for North Tyrone, and words of this kind were really of most dangerous import and should be avoided. He would also point out that the English of "regulations for regulating the use of" was very bad; so that, both on the point of draughtsmanship and of utility, he submitted that such words were inadmissible.
That the words 'the use and' stand part of the proposed clause.
§ The House divided:—Ayes 283; Noes 48.—(Division List No. 192.)213
|Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)||Bolitho, Thomas Bedford||Colomb, Sir J. C. Ready|
|Aird, John||Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-||Colville, John|
|Arnold, Alfred||Boulnois, Edmund||Condon, Thomas Joseph|
|Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.||Broadhurst, Henry||Cook, Fred. Lucas (Lambeth)|
|Arrol, Sir William||Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John||Cooke, C. W. R. (Hereford)|
|Asquith, Rt. Hon. H. H.||Brookfield, A. Montagu||Courtney, Rt. Hon. L. H.|
|Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John||Bryce, Rt. Hon. James||Cox, Robert|
|Austin, M. (Limerick, W.)||Butcher, John George||Cozens-Hardy, H. Hardy|
|Bagot, Capt. Josceline F.||Caldwell, James||Cranborne, Viscount|
|Bailey, James (Walworth)||Cameron, Sir C. (Glasgow)||Cripps, Charles Alfred|
|Baird, J. G. Alexander||Campbell, J. H. M. (Dublin)||Crombie, John William|
|Balcarres, Lord||Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.||Cross, H. Shepherd (Bolton)|
|Baldwin, Alfred||Carew, James Laurence||Curran, Thomas (Sligo, S.)|
|Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (Manch'r)||Carson, Rt. Hon. Edward||Curzon, Rt. Hn. G. N. (Lanc, SW)|
|Balfour, Rt. Hon. G. W. (Leeds)||Causton, Richard Knight||Curzon, Viscount (Bucks)|
|Banbury, Frederick George||Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs)||Dalbiac, Colonel Philip Hugh|
|Banes, Major George Edward||Cavendish, V.C.W. (Derbysh.)||Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)|
|Barnes, Frederic Gorell||Cecil, Lord H. (Greenwich)||Davitt, Michael|
|Barry, Rt. Hn. A.H. Smith-(Hunts)||Chaloner, Captain R. G. W.||Denny, Colonel|
|Barry, Francis T. (Windsor)||Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm.)||Dillon, John|
|Barton, Dunbar Plunket||Chamberlain, J. A. (Worc'r)||Donelan, Captain A.|
|Bathurst, Hon. A. Benjamin||Channing, Francis Allston||Donkin, Richard Sim|
|Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir M. H. (Brist'l)||Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry||Doogan, P. C.|
|Beach, W. W. B. (Hants)||Charrington, Spencer||Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-|
|Beckett, Ernest William||Chelsea, Viscount||Drucker, A.|
|Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.||Clarke, Sir E. (Plymouth)||Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V.|
|Biddulph, Michael||Clough, Walter Owen||Dunn, Sir William|
|Bill, Charles||Cochrane, Hon. T. H. A. E.||Edwards, Gen. Sir James B.|
|Billson, Alfred||Coddington, Sir William||Evans, Sir F. H. (South'ton)|
|Blake, Edward||Coghill, Douglas Harry||Fardell, Sir T. George|
|Blundell, Col. Henry||Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse||Farquharson, Dr. Robert|
|Fellowes, Hon. A. Edward||Jones, W. (Carnarvonshire)||Priestley, Sir W. O. (Edin.)|
|Fergusson, Rt Hn Sir J. (Manc'r)||Kemp, George||Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. E.|
|Finch, George H.||Kitson, Sir James||Purvis, Robert|
|Finlay, Sir R. Bannatyne||Knowles, Lees||Quilter, Sir Cuthbert|
|Fisher, William Hayes||Lafone, Alfred||Rankin, Sir James|
|FitzGerald, Sir R. Penrose-||Langley, Batty||Renshaw, Charles Bine|
|Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond||Laurie, Lieut.-General||Rentoul, James Alexander|
|Flavin, Michael Joseph||Lawson, J. Grant (Yorks)||Richardson, J. (Durham)|
|Fletcher, Sir Henry||Lawson, Sir W. (Cumberland)||Richardson, Sir T. (Hartlep'l)|
|Folkestone, Viscount||Lecky, Rt. Hon. W. E. H.||Ridley, Rt. Hn. Sir M. W.|
|Forster, Henry William||Lees, Sir. Elliott (Birkenhead)||Ritchie, Rt. Hon. C. T.|
|Forwood, Rt. Hon. Sir A. B.||Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie||Robertson, H. (Hackney)|
|Foster, Colonel (Lancaster)||Leuty, Thomas Richmond||Rothschild, Baron F. J. de|
|Fry, Lewis||Llewelyn, Sir Dillwyn-(Sw'ns'a)||Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)|
|Galloway, William Johnson||Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.||Samuel, H. S. (Limehouse)|
|Garfit, William||Loder, G. W. Erskine||Saunderson, Col. E. J.|
|Gedge, Sydney||Long, Col. C. W. (Evesham)||Savory, Sir Joseph|
|Gibbons, J. Lloyd||Long, Rt. Hon. W. (Liverp'l)||Scoble, Sir Andrew Richard|
|Gibbs, Hon. V. (St. Albans)||Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller||Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)|
|Giles, Charles Tyrrell||Lorne, Marquess of||Seton-Karr, Henry|
|Gilhooly, James||Lowles, John||Sharpe, William Edward T.|
|Goddard, Daniel Ford||Lowther, Rt. Hon. J. (Kent)||Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew)|
|Godson, Sir Augustus F.||Loyd, Archie Kirkman||Sidebottom, W. (Derbysh.)|
|Gordon, Hon. John Edward||Lubbock, Rt. Hon. Sir J.||Sinclair, Capt. J. (Forfarsh.)|
|Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir J. E.||Lucas-Shadwell, William||Souttar, Robinson|
|Goschen, Rt. Hn. G. J. (St. G'rg's)||MacNeill, John Gordon S.||Spicer, Albert|
|Goschen, G. J. (Sussex)||McEwan, William||Stanley, Lord (Lancs)|
|Goulding, Edward Alfred||McKillop, James||Stanley, E. J. (Somerset)|
|Greene, H. D. (Shrewsbury)||Maddison, Fred.||Stanley, H. M. (Lambeth)|
|Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs)||Mandeville, J. Francis||Steadman, William Charles|
|Gretton, John||Maple, Sir John Blundell||Stock, James Henry|
|Grey, Sir E. (Berwick)||Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe||Stone, Sir Benjamin|
|Gull, Sir Cameron||Marks, Henry Hananel||Sutherland, Sir Thomas|
|Gunter, Colonel||Massey-Mainwaring, Hn.W.F.||Thomas, A. (Glamorgan, E.)|
|Halsey, Thomas Frederick||Mellor, Colonel (Lancashire)||Tomlinson, W. E. Murray|
|Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord G.||Melville, Beresford Valentine||Tritton, Charles Ernest|
|Hamond, Sir C. (Newcastle)||Mendl, Sigismund Ferdinand||Wallace, Robert (Perth)|
|Hanbury, Rt. Hon. R. W.||Milton, Viscount||Walton, J. L. (Leeds, S.)|
|Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Sir W.||Milward, Colonel Victor||Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)|
|Hare, Thomas Leigh||Monk, Charles James||Ward, Hon. R. A. (Crewe)|
|Hayne, Rt. Hon. C. Seale-||Montagu, Sir S. (Whitechapel)||Wayman, Thomas|
|Helder, Augustus||Moon, Edward Robert Pacy||Webster, Sir R. E. (I. of W.)|
|Hemphill, Rt. Hon. C. H.||More, Robert Jasper||Wedderburn, Sir William|
|Henderson, Alexander||Morgan, Hn. F. (Monm'thsh.)||Welby, Lieut.-Col. A. C. E.|
|Hill, Rt. Hn. Lord A. (Down)||Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)||Wharton, Rt. Hon. J. L.|
|Hill, Sir Edward S. (Bristol)||Mount, William George||Whiteley, H. (Ashton-under-L.)|
|Hoare, E. B. (Hampstead)||Muntz, Philip A.||Whitmore, Charles Algernon|
|Hoare, Samuel (Norwich)||Murnaghan, George||Whittaker, Thomas Palmer|
|Hobhouse, Henry||Murray, Rt. Hn. A. G. (Bute)||Williams, J. Carvell (Notts)|
|Hogan, James Francis||Myers, William Henry||Williams, J. Powell (Birm.)|
|Holburn, J. G.||Newdigate, Francis Alexander||Wilson, John (Govan)|
|Holden, Sir Angus||Nicol, Donald Ninian||Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm|
|Hornby, William Henry||Nussey, Thomas Willans||Woods, Samuel|
|Horniman, Frederick John||O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary)||Wortley, Rt. Hon C. B. Stuart-|
|Howard, Joseph||Oldroyd, Mark||Wylie, Alexander|
|Howell, William Tudor||O'Neill, Hon. Robert T.||Wyndham, George|
|Hubbard, Hon. Evelyn||Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay||Wyndham-Quin, Maj. W. H.|
|Humphreys-Owen, A. C.||Pease, A. E. (Cleveland)||Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong|
|Hutchinson, Capt. G. W. Grice-||Pease, Arthur (Darlington)||Young, Commander (Berks, K.)|
|Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)||Pease, J. A. (Northumb.)||Young, Samuel (Cavan, E.)|
|Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick||Pickersgill, Edward Hare|
|Jenkins, Sir John Jones||Pierpoint, Robert||TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.|
|Johnston, William (Belfast)||Pirie, Duncan V.|
|Johnstone, J. H. (Sussex)||Plunkett, Rt. Hon. H. C.|
|Jolliffe, Hon. H. George||Powell, Sir Francis Sharp|
|Allan, William (Gateshead)||Burns, John||Evans, S. T. (Glamorgan)|
|Ashton, Thomas Gair||Cameron, Robert (Durham)||Farrell, J. P. (Cavan, W.)|
|Atherley-Jones, L.||Carvill, P. G. Hamilton||Hammond, John (Carlow)|
|Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.||Cawley, Frederick||Healy, Maurice (Cork)|
|Brunner, Sir J. Tomlinson||Daly, James||Hudson, George Bickersteth|
|Jameson, Major J. Eustace||O'Connor, Arthur (Donegal)||Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)|
|Jones, D. B. (Swansea)||O'Connor, J. (Wicklow, W.)||Sullivan, T. D. (Donegal, W.)|
|Jordan, Jeremiah||Parnell, John Howard||Thomas, D. A. (Merthyr)|
|Kearley, Hudson E.||Pinkerton, John||Tuite, James|
|Lewis, John Herbert||Price, Robert John||Warner, Thomas C. T.|
|Lloyd-George, David||Provand, Andrew Dryburgh||Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbro')|
|Lough, Thomas||Randell, David||Yoxall James Henry|
|Macaleese, Daniel||Rasch, Major Frederic Carne|
|MacDonnell, Dr. MA (Qu'n's C.)||Robson, William Snowdon|
|Molloy, Bernard Charles||Roche, Hon. J. (E. Kerry)||TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. T. M. Healy and Mr. Tully.|
|Morris, Samuel||Schwann, Charles E.|
|Morton, E. J. C. (Devonport)||Shaw, C. E. (Stafford)|
|Norton, Capt. Cecil Wm.||Strachey, Edward|
Another Amendment proposed—
To insert in line 21, between 'of' and 'machines' the words 'bicycles, tricycles, velocipedes, and other similar.'"—(Mr. Atkinson.)
MR. T. M. HEALY
Sir, I protest against the right honourable Gentleman interposing with an Amendment of this kind at this stage. I cannot see any good whatever in proposing an Amendment of this character to the clause. It is most unusual, I respectfully submit, for words of this kind to be introduced by a Member of the Government without notice. The Government, as I understand, accepted this Amendment upon given terms. No doubt they considered the Amendment. And what have they done with our Amendment? What they do is this: they put down our own words, if they adopt the principle of our Amendments, and then we have the advantage of seeing on the Paper what it is the Imperial Government propose. But the course on this Amendment is this. They take it up in patchwork fashion and cobble it into shape. There is a great deal to be said for leaving this clause as it is, and I am strongly in favour of leaving it as it is, and I will give the House the reason why. As the clause stands at present, the councils of the county boroughs will obtain power to regulate the speed of all machines—I think a most desirable power to give to those county boroughs. Why am I to be ridden over by an outside carriage at a speed of 15 miles an hour? Is it not most essential that power should be given to regulate machines of this character? Is it not most desirable to give county councils the power to regulate vehicular traffic in their own districts? And here is the right honourable Gentleman, striking a blow at local government under the name of a Local Government Bill by taking 214 away from county councils power to regulate traffic within their own streets in their own city. Sir, I am amazed at the Government proposing such a reactionary and restrictive Amendment as this clause. Is this to be the law now, that every other class of vehicle can go at any pace it likes through the streets of a city except the bicycle? The right honourable Gentleman the Member for North Tyrone, at all events, was consistent, because his proposal was, Sir, to deal with the bicyclist in the first sub-section of his clause. Am I not right in that? And, having dealt with the bicyclists, and disposed of them in his first sub-section, his second sub-section was drawn in order to meet the general question of vehicular traffic. That was his proposal; and, now, Sir, what the Government propose to do is this—to make a kind of consolidation clause—consolidation worse confounded—by proposing not to deal simply with vehicular traffic at all, but to confine the restriction to the case of the bicycles. We all know how the courts will consider this clause. They will do it in this way. We shall be told by the courts that all other vehicles can go at any speed they like, and that will be plain warning to the hackney car man that he can drive through the city at any speed he likes, and that there is no one to restrict his pace. That is the suggestion of Her Majesty's Government. I agree, if you take the case of Dublin, Dublin is provided for as regards the entire metropolitan area by the general law, which forbids any horse or car, or any vehicle whatever, to go at more than eight miles an hour. But the moment you leave Dublin and go into the other cities of Ireland, there is no such provision to regulate the traffic at all. I would respectively submit to Her Majesty's Government to leave the clause as it stands. If 215 they leave it as it stands it will have this very important effect—it will enable these bodies, for instance, to regulate the speed of tram cars. At the present time two Committees of this House have been considering the speeds of electric trams in the city of Dublin; and there is a most valuable proposal by the right honourable Gentleman the Member for North Tyrone, which would undoubtedly save the House these long inquiries that it undertakes in regard to tramway Bills. Sir, I do suggest, therefore, that the clause might very fairly be left to stand as it is. In the case of Belfast it is very well known they are considering at the present moment the question of tramway speed. It has been decided that "machine" includes a bicycle of any kind, and I presume the right honourable and learned Gentleman the Member for Tyrone, in using the word "machines," did so in consequence of the decisions that had been given regarding the use of that word. Then, Sir, may I ask the Government if they would say how the county borough is to provide for the case of committing a nuisance? That is the clause. Of course, no doubt, the words have been well considered by the honourable and learned Gentleman the Member for Tyrone; but I do say that so far as the bicycles are concerned, they are somewhat ill-chosen. No doubt if you leave the words in—if you are contented—the word "nuisance" may have some application; but if you limit the clause, and as the right honourable Gentleman proposes, by inserting "bicycles, tricycles, or velocipedes," I cannot conceive any phrase more inapplicable to those machines than the word "nuisance." Therefore I say it does seem to me to be a somewhat tangled clause, and that it has not received the consideration which it is entitled to, and which it would have received if the draftsman who generally acts for the Government had not been displaced by the right honourable and learned Gentleman. In these circumstances I would appeal again to the right honourable Gentleman to leave the clause as it stands. Much has been said, but I am anxious to save the time of the House, as we have a great deal to do this evening. But it does appear to me that Her 216 Majesty's Government are reckless about the way they spend time. We have given the Government a promise that we will pass the Bill in six days, and they seem determined to spend that time considering Amendments of private Members to which no adequate consideration has been given.
§ MR. J. O'CONNOR (Wicklow, W.)
I should be very glad if the right honourable Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland would give the House some idea of what is meant by the words "or other similar machines." That is a very indefinite sort of phrase, and, if adopted, would allow magistrates a very wide discretion as to what "other similar machines" are. I do not know, but, perhaps the right honourable Gentleman intends to include a bath-chair, or, perhaps, a cradle. I should also like to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland, or the Attorney General for Ireland, when they expect to bring this Bill into reasonable shape? Since the Chief Secretary for Ireland has led the House on the bicycles and tricycles he has certainly taken his supporters over a zig-zag path. The House is in such a difficulty that sometimes the right honourable Gentleman does not know where he is himself.
§ MR. SPEAKER
Order, order! The honourable Gentleman must confine himself to the Motion before the Chair.
§ MR. J. O'CONNOR
Sir, I rise, not for the purpose of occupying the time of the House, but I think the right honourable Gentleman ought to give us some idea as to what these "other similar machines" are. For my part, I should very much like to know what they mean.
§ MR. ATKINSON
The words are taken from the English Act, and are proposed in order to carry out an arrangement arrived at.
§ MR. TULLY
I wish to understand from the right honourable Gentleman; what this Amendment exactly conveys. Do the words "regulating the use and speed of bicycles, tricycles, velocipedes" mean that people using them must pass an examination 217 before they are allowed to ride on the public street? That is the law on the Continent, that any lady or gentleman wishing to ride a machine on the public street must pass an examination to satisfy the chief of police. What guarantee have we, if inserted, that a similar test may not be applied in Ireland?
§ this side of the House not to force us through the Division Lobbies any more. I think the Government are disposed to treat us in a fair manner.
That those words be there inserted in the proposed clause.
§ The House divided:—Ayes 298; Noes 44.—(Division List No. 193.)219
|Abraham, Wm. (Cork, N.E.)||Charrington, Spencer||Galloway, William Johnson|
|Aird, John||Chelsea, Viscount||Garfit, William|
|Allhusen, Augustus Henry E.||Clare, Octavius Leigh||Gedge, Sydney|
|Arnold, Alfred||Clarke, Sir Edw. (Plymouth)||Gibbons, J. Lloyd|
|Arrol, Sir William||Coddington, Sir William||Gibbs, Hon. V. (St. Albans)|
|Asquith, Rt. Hon. H. H.||Coghill, Douglas Harry||Giles, Charles Tyrrell|
|Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John||Cohen, Benjamin Louis||Gilhooly, James|
|Austin, M. (Limerick, W.)||Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse||Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herb. J.|
|Bagot, Capt. J. FitzRoy||Colomb, Sir John C. Ready||Goddard, Daniel Ford|
|Baillie, J. E. B. (Inverness)||Colville, John||Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk.|
|Baird, John George Alexander||Condon, Thomas Joseph||Gordon, Hon. John Edward|
|Balcarres, Lord||Cooke, C. W. R. (Hereford)||Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John E.|
|Baldwin, Alfred||Cozens-Hardy, Herbert H.||Goschen, Rt. Hn. G. J. (St. G'rg's)|
|Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (Manch'r)||Cranborne, Viscount||Goschen, George J. (Sussex)|
|Balfour, Rt. Hon. G. W. (Leeds)||Crean, Eugene||Goulding, Edward Alfred|
|Banbury, Frederick George||Cripps, Charles Alfred||Greene, Hy. D. (Shrewsbury)|
|Barnes, Frederic Gorell||Crombie, John William||Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs)|
|Barry, RtHnAHSmith-(Hunts)||Cross, Herbert S. (Bolton)||Gretton, John|
|Barry, F. T. (Windsor)||Curran, Thos. (Sligo, S.)||Grey, Sir Edw. (Berwick)|
|Barton, Dunbar Plunket||Curzon, Rt. Hn. G. N. (Lanc, SW)||Gunter, Colonel|
|Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benj.||Curzon, Viscount (Bucks)||Halsey, Thomas Fredk.|
|Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir M.H. (Brist'l)||Dalbiac, Col. Philip Hugh||Hamond, Sir C. (Newcastle)|
|Beach, W. W. B. (Hants)||Dalrymple, Sir Charles||Hanbury, Rt. Hon. R. W.|
|Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.||Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan)||Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Sir Wm.|
|Beckett, Ernest William||Davitt, Michael||Hardy, Laurence|
|Biddulph, Michael||Denny, Colonel||Hare, Thomas Leigh|
|Billson, Alfred||Dillon, John||Haslett, Sir James Horner|
|Birrell, Augustine||Donelan, Captain A.||Hayne, Rt. Hon. Chas. Seale-|
|Blake, Edward||Donkin, Richard Sim||Helder, Augustus|
|Blundell, Colonel Henry||Doogan, P. C.||Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Chas. H.|
|Boscawen, A. Griffith-||Doughty, George||Henderson, Alexander|
|Boulnois, Edmund||Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-||Hill, Rt. Hn. Lord A. (Down)|
|Bousfield, William Robert||Drage, Geoffrey||Hill, Sir Edw. Stock (Bristol)|
|Brigg, John||Drucker, A.||Hoare, E. B. (Hampstead)|
|Broadhurst, Henry||Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V.||Hoare, Samuel (Norwich)|
|Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John||Dunn, Sir William.||Hobhouse, Henry|
|Brookfield, A. Montagu||Edwards, Gen. Sir J. B.||Hogan, James Francis|
|Burns, John||Fardell, Sir T. George||Holburn, J. G.|
|Butcher, John George||Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edw.||Holden, Sir Angus|
|Caldwell, James||Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Manc.)||Holland, Hon. Lionel Raleigh|
|Cameron, Sir C. (Glasgow)||Finch, George H.||Horniman, Frederick John|
|Cameron, Robt. (Durham)||Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne||Howard, Joseph|
|Campbell, J. H. M. (Dublin)||Firbank, Joseph Thomas||Howell, William Tudor|
|Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.||Fisher, William Hayes||Hubbard, Hon. Evelyn|
|Carew, James Laurence||FitzGerald, Sir R. Penrose-||Hudson, George Bickersteth|
|Carlile, William Walter||Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond||Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.|
|Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs)||Flavin, Michael Joseph||Hutchinson, Capt. G. W. Grice-|
|Cavendish, V.C.W. (Derbysh.)||Fletcher, Sir Henry||Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)|
|Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford, E.)||Flynn, James Christopher||Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick|
|Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)||Folkestone, Viscount||Johnston, William (Belfast)|
|Chaloner, Captain R. G. W.||Forster, Henry William||Johnstone, John H. (Sussex)|
|Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm.)||Forwood, Rt. Hon. Sir. A. B.||Jolliffe, Hon. H. George|
|Chamberlain, J. A. (Wore'r)||Foster, Colonel (Lancaster)||Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)|
|Channing, Francis Allston||Foster, Harry S. (Suffolk)||Jordan, Jeremiah|
|Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry||Fry, Lewis||Kemp, George|
|Kilbride, Denis||Mount, William George||Sharpe, William Edward T.|
|Kitson, Sir James||Muntz, Philip A.||Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew)|
|Khowles, Lees||Murnaghan, George||Sidebottom, W. (Derbysh.)|
|Lafone, Alfred||Murray, Rt. Hn. A. G. (Bute)||Smith, Samuel (Flint)|
|Langley, Batty||Murray, Col. W. (Bath)||Souttar, Robinson|
|Laurie, Lieut.-General||Myers, William Henry||Spicer, Albert|
|Lawson, John Grant (Yorks)||Newdigate, Francis Alexander||Stanley, Lord (Lancs)|
|Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'land)||Nicol, Donald Ninian||Stanley, E. J. (Somerset)|
|Lecky, Rt. Hon. W. E. H.||O'Brien, J. F. X. (Cork)||Stanley, H. M. (Lambeth)|
|Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie||O'Brien, P. (Kilkenny)||Steadman, William Charles|
|Leuty, Thomas Richmond||O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary)||Stewart, Sir M. J. M'Taggart|
|Lewis, John Herbert||Oldroyd, Mark||Stirling-Maxwell, Sir J. M.|
|Llewelyn, SirDillwyn-(Sw'ns'a)||O'Neill, Hon. Robert T.||Stock, James Henry|
|Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.||Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay||Stone, Sir Benjamin|
|Loder, G. W. Erskine||Parnell, John Howard||Sutherland, Sir Thomas|
|Long, Col. C. W. (Evesham)||Pease, A. E. (Cleveland)||Tennant, Harold John|
|Long, Rt. Hon. W. (Liverp'l)||Pease, Arthur (Darlington)||Thornton, Percy M.|
|Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller||Pease, J. A. (Northumb.)||Tomlinson, W. E. Murray|
|Lorne, Marquess of||Phillpotts, Captain Arthur||Tritton, Charles Ernest|
|Lowles, John||Pickersgill, Edward Hare||Wallace, Robert (Perth)|
|Loyd, Archie Kirkman||Pierpoint, Robert||Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)|
|Lubbock, Rt. Hon. Sir John||Pinkerton, John||Ward, Hon. R. A. (Crewe)|
|Lucas-Shadwell, William||Pirie, Duncan V.||Wayman, Thomas|
|Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred||Powell, Sir Francis Sharp||Webster, Sir R. E. (I. of W.)|
|MacDonnell, Dr. MA (Qu'n's C.)||Priestley, Sir W. O. (Edin.)||Wedderburn, Sir William|
|MacNeill, John Gordon S.||Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward||Wharton, Rt. Hon. J. L.|
|McEwan, William||Purvis, Robert||Whiteley, H. (Ashton-under-L.)|
|McKillop, James||Quilter, Sir Cuthbert||Whittaker, Thomas Palmer|
|Maddison, Fred.||Rasch, Major Frederic Carne||Williams, J. Carvell (Notts)|
|Mandeville, J. Francis||Redmond, William (Clare)||Williams, J. Powell (Birm.)|
|Maple, Sir John Blundell||Renshaw, Charles Bine||Willoughby de Eresby, Lord|
|Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe||Rentoul, James Alexander||Wilson, H. J. (York, W. R.)|
|Marks, Henry H.||Richardson, J. (Durham)||Wilson, John (Govan)|
|Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. E.||Richardson, Sir T. (Hartlep'l)||Woods, Samuel|
|Mellor, Colonel (Lancashire)||Ridley, Rt. Hon. Sir St. M. W.||Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-|
|Melville, Beresford Valentine||Ritchie, Rt. Hon. C. T.||Wylie, Alexander|
|Mendl, Sigismund Ferdinand||Robertson, H. (Hackney)||Wyndham, George|
|Milton, Viscount||Rothschild, Baron F. J. de||Wyndham-Quin, Maj. W. H.|
|Milward, Colonel Victor||Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)||Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong|
|Monk, Charles James||Samuel, H. S. (Limehouse)||Young, Commander (Berks, K.)|
|Montagu, Hon. J. S. (Hants)||Saunderson, Col. E. James||Young, Samuel (Cavan, E.)|
|Montagu, Sir S. (Whitechapel)||Savory, Sir Joseph|
|Moon, Edward Robert Pacy||Scoble, Sir Andrew Richard||TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.|
|More, Robert Jasper||Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)|
|Morgan, Hn. F. (Monm'thsh.)||Seely, Charles Hilton|
|Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)||Seton-Karr, Henry|
|Allan, William (Gateshead)||Jones, D. B. (Swansea)||Randell, David|
|Ashton, Thomas Gair||Kearley, Hudson E.||Robson, William Snowdon|
|Atherley-Jones, L.||Lloyd-George, David||Roche, Hon. J. (E. Kerry)|
|Bolton, Thomas Dolling||Lough, Thomas||Schwann, Charles E.|
|Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson||Macaleese, Daniel||Shaw, Charles E. (Stafford)|
|Carvill, P. G. Hamilton||M'Hugh, E. (Armagh, S.)||Strachey, Edward|
|Cawley, Frederick||McKenna, Reginald||Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)|
|Clough, Walter Owen||McLeod, John||Sullivan, T. D. (Donegal, W.)|
|Daly, James||Molloy, Bernard Charles||Thomas, A. (Glamorgan, E.)|
|Esmonde, Sir Thomas||Morris, Samuel||Thomas, D. A. (Merthyr)|
|Evans, S. T. (Glamorgan)||Morton, E. J. C. (Devonport)||Tuite, James|
|Farrell, J. P. (Cavan, W.)||Norton, Capt. C. William||Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbro')|
|Hammond, John (Carlow)||O'Connor, A. (Donegal)|
|Healy, Maurice (Cork)||O'Connor, J. (Wicklow, W.)||TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. T. M. Healy and Mr. Tully.|
|Healy, T. J. (Wexford)||Price, Robert John|
|Jameson, Maj. J. Eustace||Provand, Andrew Dryburgh|
MR. T. M. HEALY
I beg to move to omit the word "nuisance" and I feel quite sure the Government will accept that. Upon the whole, I think that word might go.
§ MR. SPEAKER
Order, order! The Amendment which the right honourable Gentleman (the Attorney General for Ireland) has given notice of comes first.
Another Amendment proposed—
Line 22, after the word 'borough,' insert 'and the carriage of lights on such machines, and the warning of approach to be given by persons using the same.'"—(Mr. Atkinson.)
MR. T. M. HEALY
Now we have come to a difficult portion of this clause, and it has not become a question whether or not we might persuade the right honourable Gentleman to withdraw the clause, so that we can have an opportunity of considering the words of the clause. This is a penal clause to be administered by the magistrates and enforced by the police, who are in the hands of that department. The right honourable Gentleman is proposing the adoption of words to enforce a law which has not been even before the House upon the Paper. I do think this is most unfair, most unusual, and most unbusinesslike, because words of this kind may have the most important effect upon Ireland, and it is not right in a penal clause like this that words should be put before the House of Commons without due notice. I myself have been unable to follow the words or take down the Amendment which has been moved by the Attorney General for Ireland. Is that the way, Mr. Speaker, that you are going to do business in this House? If so, you are imperilling the liberty of the subject without giving notice of the words which are to be inserted, and the subject is to be placed in peril without having the words before the House. [Laughter.] It may be a laughing matter with honourable Gentlemen opposite, but those who have to deal with magistrates and policemen, most of whom are hostile to the people, do not think that it is a laughing matter. I venture to prophesy, Mr. Speaker, that some of the gentlemen who are advocating this clause will suffer sorrow by getting in contact with the policemen from something that has nothing to do with bicycling. I think the Government might reasonably be asked, through the right honourable Gentleman, to postpone this clause until we have an opportunity of seeing his words upon the Paper. It is not an unusual demand to make. I was unable to follow, the words of the right honourable Gentleman, and he has no doubt been closeted in the Lobby engaged in drafting these words; but we 222 were not palled to that conference, and I think we should have had the opportunity of seeing the words upon the Paper, or have been taken into consultation as well as the right honourable and learned Gentleman the Member for North Tyrone. I cannot see why the pilotage of this clause should not have been taken in hand by the Government, and I cannot see why the right honourable Gentleman the Member for North Tyrone should have been placed in that very important position by——
MR. T. M. HEALY
Well, I think the right honourable Gentleman the Member for North Tyrone should really have given us the advantage of his counsel in respect to these words which have been proposed. If you search this Bill from top to bottom there is not a single penal clause in the Measure, and now the right honourable Gentleman, by words which we have not seen before, proposes to make this alteration by the addition of a penal clause, and in taking that course, in a Bill which had been generally cheerfully received, I am bound to say that I am surprised that the Government should have imported, at the request of my right honourable Friend, this clause, and why they should have accepted this foreign importation into the Bill I fail to conceive. But, having done so, do give us these words upon the Paper. The right honourable Gentleman may no doubt think that they are good, but even the most choice words sometimes are none the worse for a little criticism in the House. Therefore I do appeal to the right honourable Gentleman for the postponement of this clause, because there are a number of important topics to be dealt with. There is the question of summary conviction in the next clause, and a number of other questions as to what the nature of the penalty shall be. I do ask the right honourable Gentleman to allow us to have the clause on the Paper as a whole, and I appeal to him to give us these words; and if he will I will therefore ask him to withdraw the clause and bring it up again on Monday next in a non-contentious shape.
§ MR. W. REDMOND (Clare, E.)
As I understand the question, an arrangement was come to by general consent, that the discussion upon this stage of the Bill should be completed upon the 18th of this month. A great many most important matters have yet to be dealt with as evidenced by the large number of Amendments on the Paper, and if the arrangement for this Bill is to be completed in its present stage altogether by the 18th of this month it does seem to me rather a pity to take up time discussing this point when there are so many other matters of greater importance, the discussion on which must necessarily be curtailed if the undertaking that the Bill is to be through on the 18th is to hold good. With regard to the merits of this clause I agree with the honourable Gentleman who spoke last to this extent, that it would, in my opinion, have been a great deal better if the Government had, with due notice to everybody concerned, taken charge of this matter themselves. But certainly, as the clause stands, as one interested very much in cycling, and having had a number of communications from other people, and from many organisations interested in cycling, I welcome the change which is being made, because it is not only, in my opinion, in the interests of the public, but it is absolutely in the best interests of those who enjoy the sport of cycling.
§ MR. J. O'CONNOR (Wicklow, W.)
I quite agree with the honourable Member who has just spoken that it is a pity that the time of the House should be wasted in reference to a matter of so little importance. But while I agree with that I wish to say that this clause which has been inserted or accepted by the Chief Secretary for Ireland is a whole Bill in itself, and it is, moreover, a coercion Bill, and a Bill which the right honourable Gentleman himself knows very well was very much opposed by Members on these benches, and now the right honourable Gentleman the Chief Secretary has accepted a clause which embodies principles which he knows very well himself were hotly contested by honourable Members from Ireland. I do not think it would be in the interests of the House, 224 and it would allow us to get on to the business, if this clause were postponed. I support the request of the honourable and learned Member for North Louth. I do think that there are so many contentious points in this clause that it ought to be held over till a more convenient time, and I do hope the right honourable Gentleman will allow the House to get on with the Measure, and I aim sure if he will only consent to withdraw the clause it will allow us to proceed with the business.
§ MR. GERALD BALFOUR
As I explained upon the Second Reading, the right honourable Gentleman the Member for Tyrone asked that this clause should form part of the Bill.
§ MR. GERALD BALFOUR
Because I was anxious to see what the opinion of the House upon it was. That portion of it—namely, the first clause, formed the substance of the Bill of last year. It is not true to say, as the honourable Member who has just sat down stated, that the Government were aware of the opposition to this clause. I for one generously accept it. If the opposition had been reasonable opposition I might have been able to accede to the honourable and learned Member for Louth's request. I cannot help thinking that the Opposition has not been reasonable, or I might have given way, but as it has not I cannot.
§ MR. DILLON (Mayo, E.)
I only rise to say that I do not think, in the opinion of a very large majority of the Irish Members, this clause is favourably received. It is only fair, in view of what has been said from these benches to the right honourable Gentleman, to say that, as far as I have been able to gather, the views of the majority of the Irish Members are strongly in favour of this clause.
That those words be there inserted in the proposed clause.
§ The House divided:—Ayes 271; Noes 28.—(Division List No. 194.)227
|Abraham, Wm. (Cork, N.E.)||Dalbiac, Colonel Philip Hugh||Howell, William Tudor|
|Allhusen, Augustus H. E.||Dalrymple, Sir Charles||Hubbard, Hon. Evelyn|
|Arnold, Alfred||Daly, James||Hudson, George Bickersteth|
|Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.||Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan)||Humphreys-Owen, A. C.|
|Arrol, Sir William||Davitt, Michael||Hutchinson, Capt.G.W. Grice-|
|Ashton, Thomas Gair||Denny, Colonel||Hutton, A. E. (Morley)|
|Asquith, Rt. Hn. H. H.||Dillon, John||Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick|
|Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John||Donelan, Captain A.||Johnston, William (Belfast)|
|Austin, M. (Limerick, W.||Donkin, Richard Sim||Jolliffe, Hon. H. George|
|Bagot, Capt. J. FitzRoy||Doogan, P. C.||Jones, W. (Carnarvonshire)|
|Baillie, J. E. B. (Inverness)||Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-||Jordan, Jeremiah|
|Baird, J. G. Alexander||Drage, Geoffrey||Kemp, George|
|Balcarres, Lord||Drucker, A.||Kilbride, Denis|
|Baldwin, Alfred||Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V.||King, Sir Henry Seymour|
|Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (Manc'r)||Dunn, Sir William||Kitson, Sir James|
|Balfour, Rt. Hon. G. W. (Leeds)||Edwards, Gen. Sir J. B.||Knowles, Lees|
|Banbury, Frederick George||Fardell, Sir T. George||Lafone, Alfred|
|Barnes, Frederic Gorell||Fellowes, Hon. A. Edward||Laurie, Lieut.-General|
|Barry, Francis T. (Windsor)||Finch, George H.||Lawson, J. Grant (Yorks)|
|Barton, Dunbar Plunket||Finlay, Sir R. Bannatyne||Lawson, Sir W. (Cumberland)|
|Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir M. H. (Brist'l)||Firbank, Joseph Thomas||Lecky, Rt. Hon. W. E. H.|
|Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.||Fisher, William Hayes||Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie|
|Beckett, Ernest William||FitzGerald, Sir R. Penrose-||Leng, Sir John|
|Biddulph, Michael||Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond||Leuty, Thomas Richmond|
|Bigwood, James||Flavin, Michael Joseph||Lewis, John Herbert|
|Bill, Charles||Flynn, James Christopher||Llewelyn, Sir Dillwyn-(Sw'ns'a)|
|Billson, Alfred||Forster, Henry William||Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.|
|Blake, Edward||Forwood, Rt. Hon. Sir A. B.||Loder, G. W. Erskine|
|Boulnois, Edmund||Foster, Colonel (Lancaster)||Long, Col. C. W. (Evesham)|
|Bousfield, William Robert||Fry, Lewis||Long, Rt. Hn. W. (Liverp'l)|
|Brigg, John||Galloway, William Johnson||Lópes, Henry Yarde Buller|
|Broadhurst, Henry||Garfit, William||Lorne, Marquess of|
|Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John||Gibbons, J. Lloyd||Lowles, John|
|Brookfield, A. Montagu||Gibbs, Hon. V. (St. Albans)||Loyd, Archie Kirkman|
|Burns, John||Giles, Charles Tyrrell||Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred|
|Butcher, John George||Gilhooly, James||MacDonnell, Dr. M. A. (Qn's C.)|
|Caldwell, James||Gladstone, Rt. Hon. H. J.||MacNeill, John Gordon S.|
|Cameron, Sir C. (Glasgow)||Goddard, Daniel Ford||McEwan, William|
|Cameron, Robert (Durham)||Godson, Sir Augustus Fred.||McKillop, James|
|Campbell, J. H. M. (Dublin)||Gordon, Hon. John Edward||Maddison, Fred.|
|Carew, James Laurence||Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir J. E.||Mandeville, J. Francis|
|Carson, Rt. Hon. Edward||Goschen, Rt. Hn. G. J. (St. G'rg's)||Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe|
|Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs)||Goschen, G. J. (Sussex)||Mellor, Colonel (Lancashire)|
|Cavendish, V.C.W.(Derbysh.)||Goulding, Edward Alfred||Melville, Beresford Valentine|
|Cecil, E. (Hertford, E.)||Greene, H. D. (Shrewsbury)||Milton, Viscount|
|Chaloner, Captain R. G. W.||Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs)||Milward, Colonel Victor|
|Chamberlain, Rt.Hn.J.(Birm.)||Gretton, John||Monk, Charles James|
|Chamberlain, J. A. (Worc'r)||Grey, Sir Edward (Berwick)||Montagu, Hon. J. S. (Hants)|
|Channing, Francis Allston||Gunter, Colonel||Montagu, Sir S. (Whitechapel)|
|Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry||Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord G.||Moon, Edward Robert Pacy|
|Charrington, Spencer||Hamond, Sir C. (Newcastle)||Morgan, Hn. F. (Monm'thsh.)|
|Chelsea, Viscount||Hanbury, Rt. Hon. R. W.||Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)|
|Clare, Octavius Leigh||Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Sir W.||Mount, William George|
|Clarke, Sir E. (Plymouth)||Hardy, Laurence||Muntz, Philip A.|
|Clough, Walter Owen||Hare, Thomas Leigh||Murnaghan, George|
|Coddington, Sir William||Haslett, Sir James Horner||Murray, Rt. Hn. A.G. (Bute)|
|Coghill, Douglas Harry||Hayden, John Patrick||Myers, William Henry|
|Cohen, Benjamin Louis||Hayne, Rt. Hon. C. Seale-||Newdigate, Francis Alexander|
|Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse||Helder, Augustus||Nicol, Donald Ninian|
|Colomb, Sir John C. Ready||Hemphill, Rt. Hon. C. H.||O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)|
|Colville, John||Henderson, Alexander||O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary)|
|Condon, Thomas Joseph||Hill, Rt. Hn. Lord A. (Down)||O'Neill, Hon. Robert T.|
|Cook, F. Lucas (Lambeth)||Hoare, E. B. (Hampstead)||Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay|
|Hoare, Samuel (Norwich)||Pease, A. E. (Cleveland)|
|Cooke, C. W. R. (Hereford)||Hobhouse, Henry||Pease, Arthur (Darlington)|
|Cranborne, Viscount||Hogan, James Francis||Pease, J. A. (Northumb.)|
|Crean, Eugene||Holburn, J. G.||Phillpotts, Captain A.|
|Curran, Thomas (Sligo, S.).||Holden, Sir Angus||Pickersgill, Edward Hare|
|Curzon, Rt. Hn. G. N. (Lanc, S. W.)||Holland, Hon. Lionel R.||Pierpont, Robert|
|Curzon, Viscount (Bucks)||Howard, Joseph||Pinkerton, John|
|Pirie, Duncan V.||Sharpe, William Edward T.||Wharton, Rt. Hon. J. L.|
|Plunkett, Rt. Hon. H. C.||Shaw-Stewart, M.H.(Renfrew)||Whiteley, H. (Ashton-under-L.)|
|Pollock, Harry Frederick||Smith, Samuel (Flint)||Whittaker, Thomas Palmer|
|Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward||Souttar, Robinson||Williams, Col. R. (Dorset)|
|Purvis, Robert||Spicer, Albert||Williams, J. Carvell (Notts).|
|Quilter, Sir Cuthbert||Stanley, Lord (Lancs)||Williams, J. P. (Birmingham)|
|Redmond, J. E. (Waterford)||Stanley, E. J. (Somerset)||Willoughby de Eresby, Lord|
|Redmond, William (Clare)||Steadman, William Charles||Willox, Sir John Archibald|
|Renshaw, Charles Bine||Stewart, Sir M. J. M'Taggart||Wilson, John (Govan)|
|Rentoul, James Alexander||Stirling-Maxwell, Sir J. M.||Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm|
|Richardson, J. (Durham)||Stock, James Henry||Woods, Samuel|
|Richardson, Sir T. (Hartlep'l)||Stone, Sir Benjamin||Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-|
|Ridley, Rt. Hon. Sir M. W.||Sutherland, Sir Thomas||Wylie, Alexander|
|Ritchie, Rt. Hon. C. T.||Tennant, Harold John||Wyndham, George|
|Robertson, H. (Hackney)||Thomas, A. (Glamorgan, E.)||Wyndham-Quin, Maj. W. H.|
|Roche, Hn. James (E. Kerry)||Thornton, Percy M.||Young, Commander (Berks, E.)|
|Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)||Tritton, Charles Ernest||Young, Samuel (Cavan, E.)|
|Samuel, H. S. (Limehouse)||Ward, Hon. R. A. (Crewe)||Yoxall, James Henry|
|Saunderson, Col. E. James||Wayman, Thomas|
|Savory, Sir Joseph||Webster, Sir R. E. (I. of W.)||TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.|
|Scoble, Sir Andrew Richard||Wedderburn, Sir William|
|Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)||Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon-|
|Atherley-Jones, L.||Lloyd-George, David||Shaw, Charles E. (Stafford)|
|Bolton, Thomas Dolling||Lough, Thomas||Strachey, Edward|
|Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson||Macaleese, Daniel||Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)|
|Carvill, Patrick G. Hamilton||McDermott, Patrick||Sullivan, T. D. (Donegal, W.)|
|Crilly, Daniel||McKenna, Reginald||Thomas, D. A. (Merthyr)|
|Curran, T. B. (Donegal)||Molloy, Bernard Charles||Tuite, James|
|Farrell, J. P. (Cavan, W.)||Morton, E. J. C. (Devonport)|
|Hammond, John (Carlow)||Norton, Capt. Cecil William||TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. T. M. Healy and Mr. James O'Connor.|
|Healy, Maurice (Cork)||O'Connor, Arthur (Donegal)|
|Jameson, Major J. Eustace||Randell, David|
|Kearley, Hudson E.||Rasch, Major Frederic Carne|
Further Amendment proposed—
To omit the word 'nuisance' in line 22."—(Mr. T. M. Healy.)
MR. T. M. HEALY
Perhaps I may be allowed to say a word with regard to what the right honourable Gentleman has just stated, that he made a fair and reasonable proposition to me earlier in the evening which I declined to accept. I must enter a contradiction to that statement. What he suggested was that the right honourable Gentleman should withdraw this clause, and that the Chief Secretary should bring it up again.
§ MR. SPEAKER
Order, order! The honourable Gentleman is not speaking to the question before the House.
§ Amendment agreed to.
Another Amendment proposed—
In line 27 of the proposed clause, to leave out the word 'summarily.'"—(Mr. T. M. Healy.)
MR. T. M. HEALY
I beg leave to move the omission of the word "summarily." I think we are entitled to know what is the exact nature of the proposal under this Bill. In all other penal clauses we have had the advantage of a First Reading, a Second Reading, a Committee stage, and a Third Reading. The only clause in this Bill dealing with penal matters is one which the Government propose to introduce containing the word "summarily." It reads—Any person summarily convicted of offending against the regulations.If I may point out that it will explain to him what is the meaning of the word. There is a curious distinction, drawn which I think is not very apprehendable, and it seems to me that the word "summarily" is really not required. Now, Sir, owing to the first sub-clause being entirely omitted, you have these extraordinary words of perambulation put in. The author of these words might be able to explain them. For a long time 229 he has remained modestly silent, and the defence of his words has fallen upon the Attorney General for Ireland. I should be much obliged if he will tell us what is the meaning of the words. I do think, Sir, the Irish Members and the Irish people will be somewhat startled to find that a Bill supposed to confer local government will put them under a bench, of magistrates, not one of whom is appointed by the people in this portion of the Measure, and I would further point out that by a provision of the Bill itself in the borough of Kilkenny it proposes to abolish the borough magistrates as well. In the borough of Kilkenny it makes the borough magistrates county magistrates; therefore the result will be that all the popular magistrates will lose their jurisdiction under this Bill, whereas persons in Carrickfergus are apparently to remain county magistrates. I think "summarily" is a somewhat strong word, and I think, at all events, that there ought to be an appeal. A fine of 40s. in Ireland is a very serious matter, and I understand that when you fine a man 10s. he would have an appeal. There are very strong reasons why he should not give this power.
MR. T. M. HEALY
I would suggest that it would be only doing a fair thing to omit this word, for it will be unfair if this word is now to be retained in the clause. If the Government have a desire, which I am sure they have, to proceed with this Measure regularly and in order, they will withdraw this clause, and give us an opportunity of discussing it later on. I beg to move to omit the word "summarily."
§ THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,) Manchester, E.
I have not ventured to intrude in these discussions on the Bill except upon one or two occasions, but I venture to speak on the present occasion in order to respectfully make an appeal to the honourable and learned Gentleman. With regard to the word "summarily," I think it is easy of interpretation, and it is Understood to mean as under the Summary Jurisdiction Act, which I think 230 is a procedure which is perfectly well understood, and which gives the right of appeal. I think that is perfectly understood by everybody. I do hope, Sir, that the honourable and learned Gentleman will not press this Amendment, and I would respectfully put before him that great concessions have been made in deference to his opposition to the clause, and in view of the limited time given for the discussion of this Bill, by agreement on both sides of the House, I trust that the honourable and learned Gentleman will feel that perhaps his opposition to this clause has been sufficient for all practical purposes. I am sure as the clause has been modified and limited, as it now has been, even if the honourable and learned Gentleman has that anticipation, at all events a large part of his objections must have been now mitigated, and I do trust that he will allow it to pass without any further discussion, and let us proceed with matters which I think he will be the first to admit are of far greater importance.
MR. T. M. HEALY
I have never refused any appeal which the right honourable Gentleman the Leader of the House has made, because I have always found, in the course of public business, that he has treated even the humblest Member of this House since he became its Leader with uniform courtesy. Therefore I will accede to his appeal, and will not press my opposition further. But I take leave to say that, from a constitutional point of view, nothing worse has been done in any Bill with which I have had to deal than to introduce in a Measure at this stage a clause dealing With penal matters which has never had a First Reading, a Second Reading, or a Committee stage, and it is being inserted without us even knowing that the Government were going to accept it.
§ MR. SERJEANT HEMPHILL
I may say that this clause about summary conviction is taken from the English Act.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.231
At the end of the proposed clause, to add the words—
Bicycles, tricycles, velocipedes, and other similar machines are hereby declared to be carriages."—(Mr. Arnold-Forster.)
§ MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER (Belfast, W.)
If the Government do not accept this Amendment of course I shall hardly feel justified in pressing it, and I may be told that there is no necessity for it, insomuch as a bicycle has been declared to be a carriage; but I think in practice there is a real need for this Measure in Ireland, and I would point out that unless we have something of this kind a bicyclist has no claim at all to his right on either side of the road. It is not my intention to occupy the time of the House at any length, and I merely ask the right honourable Gentleman if he will accept this most reasonable proposal.
§ MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER
It is to add—Line 30, after the word 'shillings' insert the words 'bicycles, tricycles, velocipedes, and other similar machines are hereby declared to be carriages within the meaning of the Highway Act.'
§ MR. ATKINSON
I think that as bicycles have already been declared to be carriages they will be entirely in the same position. I cannot, therefore, accept this Amendment, because, as the honourable Member will see, it is entirely unnecessary.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
That this clause be read a second time, and, as amended, added to the Bill.
§ Clause, as amended, added to the Bill.
§ MR. SPEAKER
The next Amendment, standing in the name of the right honourable Gentleman the Member for North Tyrone, cannot be moved in the Report stage, but can only be moved in Committee.
§ Another clause—
- "(1) It shall be lawful for the Lord Lieutenant, if he shall think fit, on the application of the county council of any county (including any county borough) to direct the Commissioners of Valuation to make a general revision or partial revision, at request of county council, of the valuation of all rateable tenements and hereditaments within any county union or borough; provided that where such direction is given with respect to a borough (whether a county borough or not) the revision shall extend to the whole of every union comprising any part of such borough.
- "(2) The Lord Lieutenant may by Order in Council make such rules and regulations as may be necessary or expedient for carrying out any such general revision, or for partial revision, at the instance of the county council, and for that purpose may adopt and modify the provisions of the Valuation Acts as to revision of valuation or incidental thereto."—(Mr. T. M. Healy.)
MR. T. M. HEALY
I think this clause is a valuable one, and one which will have to be moved in the Committee Stage, because there is no machinery for the working of the clause in its present form, because I could not introduce such, machinery in it at the present stage. I would respectfully make an appeal to the Government whether towns like Dublin, which feel very strongly on the question of valuation, are not entitled to have some procedure by which a valuation can be obtained. I am sure that the matter has not escaped the attention of the Government, and it has been before many Governments. Although I know that this Bill has taken up a great deal of the attention of the present Government, perhaps they have given some consideration to the question of providing some machinery which will meet the case, and do so in a more effective manner that I have been able to do. I move pro formâ that this clause be read a second time.
§ MR. GERALD BALFOUR
The whole question of valuation is surrounded by many difficulties, although I recognise that the object of the honourable and learned Member is a very desirable one. I think it is impossible for the Government to accept this clause, but when the Bill has been recommitted the Government will undertake to put down a clause for the consideration of the Committee, which I do not say will absolutely meet all the difficulties connected with the 233 question, but which will enable a valuation to be taken of a county borough. At all events, I think we shall be able to put down such a clause, although I will not promise that it will satisfy the honourable and learned Member.
MR. T. M. HEALY
Under the circumstances I beg to withdraw the clause. I put this clause down at the request of the Corporation of Dublin, and I think the answer of the right honourable Gentleman will give satisfaction to that body.
§ Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Another clause—
- "(1) It shall be lawful for the councils for the county of Dublin and county borough of Dublin, respectively, to license any theatre, room, or building within their respective counties for the performance of stage plays and other dramatic entertainments, such licence not to be in force for a longer period than one year from the granting thereof without being renewed, and while any such licence is in force it shall be lawful to perform stage plays and other dramatic entertainments, whether for reward or otherwise, in any theatre, room, or building so licensed, anything in the Act of the Parliament of Ireland, of the twenty-sixth year of the reign of George the Third, chapter fifty-seven, intituled an Act for regulating the Stage in the city and county of Dublin, to the contrary notwithstanding.
- "(2) Nothing in this section shall affect the power of Her Majesty, her heirs, and successors, to grant letters patent under the said Act."—(Mr. J. J. Clancy.)
§ MR. CLANCY (Dublin Co., N.)
I beg to move this Amendment, and I do so at the request of the Dublin Corporation. I may say that not only is the Corporation of Dublin interested in seeing this Amendment carried, but the other authorities in the suburban districts are equally interested. Sir, I do not intend to trespass upon the time of the House at any great length, but it is necessary for me to say a few words in explanation of the clause in regard to the licensing of theatres. In the first place, I would refer to the law as existing in England, for the purpose of drawing attention to the contrast between the two countries in relation to this matter. As every lawyer who has gone into the subject knows, the English law, up to 1832, practically restricted the per- 234 formance of stage plays and other dramatic performances to houses or theatres which were licensed by patent from the Crown. Since 1833, however, free trade in licensing theatres has been the rule in England. I believe there are still theatres in England which are licensed by patent from the Crown, but, even in the suburban districts, other theatres licensed by the local authorities exist and carry on business. I think the House will be rather surprised to hear that the system which was commenced to be abolished in 1832 in England is still in full force and effect in the city and county of Dublin. In the city of Dublin there are three theatres, every one of which is licensed by virtue of a patent from the Crown, obtained at very considerable expense—an expense of £200 or £300, and after lengthened inquiry. In the county of Dublin there is complete prohibition, and I wish to explain to the House how it comes to pass that that is the case. By an old Act of 1786, passed by the Irish Parliament, it was expressly forbidden that any theatre in the city or county of Dublin should be opened, except those licensed by patent from the Crown, and the penalty for violating the law was £300 for each performance. Well, that law is exactly the law at the present moment, and I wish to modify it slightly. I do not propose to extend the operation of the clause to any part of Ireland except the city and county of Dublin. It is not necessary to do so. In Belfast, I believe, the Lord Mayor is the licensing authority, and in Cork I think the Cork Corporation is the licensing authority, but in all the rest of the country there is absolutely no law regarding this matter at all, with the result that anybody can set up anywhere theatres for the performance of stage plays. Well, I do not want on this Bill to introduce a general change in the law. I do not, in the first place, desire to do such a thing, because I am afraid it would tend to lengthen the discussion. I do not want, for my own part, to delay the progress of this Bill; there are a great many matters to discuss, and I should be sorry to take up time by attempting what I know the Government would 235 resist. I do not want, therefore, a change in the law of Ireland, as a whole, regarding the licensing of theatres, and I may say that I do not want, in the second place, to injure any of the theatres in Dublin by proposing such a change in the law as would be likely to raise opposition by them in this House. I may say that I think gentlemen who live in Dublin, as I do, must feel considerable satisfaction that within the last six or seven months an enterprising firm have re-opened the Theatre Royal in that city, and have made it a very beautiful playhouse. It is certainly one of the finest theatres in the three kingdoms, and up to the present time nothing but high-class plays have been produced at that house. I should, therefore, be sorry if anything were done to injure the present management of that theatre, although, at the same time, I must protest against the idea that any theatre has any vested rights outside the house in which it carries on its business. But my proposal, I contend, will not hurt a single theatre in Dublin. I will go farther, and say that not only will it not hurt any of the existing theatres in Dublin, but that possibly, in the long run, it will very much help them. Now, the object of this Amendment which it is my desire to move is merely to enable amateurs to perform plays in Dublin, either for charitable objects or for the purpose of amusement, and especially Celtic plays, in the production of which a large and increasing class of Irishmen are interested. It is strange, but true, that a statutory enactment is necessary to enable them to do so. A few months ago there was a society in Dublin, called the Amateur Elocutionists' Society, which applied for leave to perform a play in the Molesworth Hall in Dublin. Now, the Molesworth Hall is a hall which can contain only about 200 people, and probably I would exaggerate if I said that a £10 note would be the amount of the proceeds; in all probability it would not be so much, because I am sure the performers on the stage would probably have their own particular friends there free. An application was made to have this performance, and the 236 House will probably be interested to hear the answer. This was the answer—
§ "Chief Secretary's Office, Dublin Castle.
§ "Jan. 22nd, 1890.
§ "Sir,—I am directed by the Lord Lieutenant to acknowledge your letter, asking on behalf of the president and council of the Association of Elocutionists for permission to give a dramatic performance in the Molesworth Hall, on the 25th inst., and to inform you that His Excellency is advised that he has no power to give the permission asked for."
§ Well, it appears that the Great Seal of Ireland could not be used on this occasion in order to get permission to perform on this single occasion a single play in the Molesworth Hall, which probably would not contain 10 or 12 paying members in the audience. The promoters of the entertainment would actually have to go before the two honourable and learned Gentlemen whom I see opposite—the Attorney General and the Solicitor General for Ireland—and state their case; and perhaps at the end of three or four months they might or might not get a favourable decision. That case is not the only one. There was another case of a bazaar, for some Protestant charity, which was known by the comprehensive title of "Cosmos." There was an application in that case for leave to perform a one-act play, which would have lasted exactly a quarter of an hour. It was absolutely found impossible to get permission to perform that one-act, quarter-of-an-hour play, and I believe the attempt was given up. That is not the only fact I could mention, and I am sure the Attorney General who is opposite will be interested in listening to one other fact, which I will mention, not for his information, but to refresh his memory. A few years ago, in the Mechanics' Institute of Dublin, a gentleman named McNally thought he would get up some amusement for the members by organising a play, to be performed in a room in that institute, under the name of "The Spirit of the Lake, the Squire, the Valet, and the Mermaid." Now, I am not well acquainted with theatrical literature, and I cannot say whether this is a famous play or not; but, at all events, Mr. McNally and his fellow-members of the institute determined to have that play, and they played it for a certain number of nights. I do 237 not know at whose instance it was that action was taken, but Mr. McNally was sued solemnly in the High Court of Justice, under the old Act of 1786, for penalties amounting to a total sum of £10,789 14s. 3d. I notice there two names at the bottom of this serious document, and probably one of them will be recognised by the right honourable Gentleman who sits on the Treasury Bench. One signature is that of Mr. Ernest G. Swift, and the other is that of Mr. John Atkinson. I do not know whether Mr. McNally paid any attention to that writ, but I rather fancy he did not. I believe he let judgment go by default, and judgment was solemnly entered against him. I am aware that nothing was recovered and nothing was gained at all, except the contempt of the public for the law and for the administrators of the law who drew this document and filed this information. Now, I contend that cases like this are really ridiculous, and ought to be prevented, and that it is high time to stop this nonsense and to allow occasional performances in the city of Dublin. I said just now, in moving my Amendment, that I did not desire to make a change in the general law of licensing theatres. I do not propose any enactment devoted to the whole of Ireland, because I know that it would be outside the scope of the Bill, and that, of course, I could not carry it. I do not want, I repeat, to do any injury whatever to the existing theatres in Dublin, and consequently if the Government think that this new clause would have this effect of injuring the existing theatres in Dublin, I would propose to amend this clause very slightly by inserting before the word "performance," in the third line, the word "occasional." I may say at once that I have in contemplation only the allowance of stage plays for charitable objects, such as in the beautiful new town hall at Rathmines, the town hall at Kingstown, and the town hall at Black Rook, or in any other townships round about Dublin, in which we hope to have town halls erected before long.
§ MR. ATKINSON
said the clause would go much further than the honourable Member intended and beyond his avowed object. There were three patent theatres in Dublin, and the patentees had been 238 required to conform to certain strict conditions. Thousands of pounds had been spent on Dublin theatres by holders of patent rights on the faith that those rights would not be arbitrarily interfered with. At the same time, we shall remove the apprehensions of the executors of the performances, if the honourable Member will accept the suggestion to set down a clause which will deal with this matter.
§ MR. CLANCY
asked to be allowed to say a few words. He accepted the compromise which had been suggested by the right honourable Gentleman, but he might say the argument that was advanced now was the same as that which was advanced in 1832. The Licensing Act was disregarded in 1832 and 1843. The state of the land in England was just the same now as it was then, but if the right honourable Gentleman undertook to insert a clause to the effect he had suggested he was quite content.
§ MR. W. REDMOND
was glad to hear the right honourable Gentleman had taken the course which he had, which, in his opinion, was a very fair one. It would be very unfair to the gentlemen in Dublin who had taken these theatres, and invested their capital in them, upon the faith that the law would continue the same as it had when they put their money into them, if the law was altered. The theatres in Dublin were excellently managed, and gave the greatest satisfaction to the public.
§ MR. W. FIELD (Dublin, St. Patrick)
entirely endorsed what had been said by the honourable Members who had preceded him, who had accepted the offer of the right honourable Gentleman. But he wished to point out that the Amendment was put down by reason of the Amateur Dramatic Society of Dublin, which was in the habit of encouraging amateur performances, found a difficulty in carrying on dramatic performances, principally for charitable purposes, in the Town. Hall of Black Rock; they had done so, but encountered police difficulties. Had those difficulties not arisen, it would pot have been necessary to move the Amendment. He thought the difficulty had, however, been met by the 239 proposal of the right honourable Gentleman, and he hoped in the future difficulties would not be put in the way of amateur performances organised for charitable purposes. These people did not wish to enter into competition with the legitimate theatres, but in Dublin a very strong feeling existed in the matter, and he himself had received deputations asking him to move the Amendment.
§ Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.
Another clause proposed—
Stamp duty shall not be payable in respect of any receipt given by any body created under this Act, or any contract with or between any such body."—(Mr. T. M. Healy.)
MR. T. M. HEALY
The Amendment is, substantially, the law already. The right honourable Gentleman seems to be in doubt about it. I will explain why I take this view that it is the law: my Amendment is very little more than the existing law. According to the existing law no receipt is required for poor rate in Ireland; in fact, it is not poor rate at all; it has been previously known as county cess. Therefore it follows that the rate which will be known hereafter as poor rate will be free from stamp duty, and no receipt for poor rate—even though it be only technically a poor rate—may be stamped. The contracts for works, now excluded by the grand jury, are exempted from stamp duty. Therefore, the only matter in respect of which this clause will work will be for contracts such as those made by boards of guardians or some such body. Here is another difficulty: a corporation, because it is a corporation, must make its contract under seal, and, by an absurd provision of the law, it requires a 10s. stamp. It appears to me that the Government are bound by either one of two things—either the contracts made by a county council need not be under seal, which will save the ratepayers 9s., or else the contracts can be freed from this stamp duty. It may be said, what claim is there for remitting the stamp duty in cases of this kind? The claim is that it is a labourers' contract, or for work done under the Sanitary Acts. They are largely labourers' contracts. Therefore, for the mere sake of making the law regular and uniform, it is most desirable that Amendments 240 like this should be accepted. Of course, it is very unfortunate that the Treasury took strong views in regard to this matter; therefore the Treasury may not be in a position to accept my Amendment. That is simply because the Treasury do not understand it; they did not hear the matter argued, they simply instructed the head office that this Amendment was not to be accepted. Yet I cannot conceive that the Government could oppose an Amendment of this kind. A town commission can make contracts not under seal. It can make contracts by any two of its members; therefore, instead of a 10s. stamp, they only require a 6d. stamp. Is it not absurd to say that one contract should require a 10s. stamp and another a 6d. stamp? That, to my mind, brings the law into discredit, and it does not bring into the Treasury any large sum of money. I am sure the Government can see no answer to my demand that the county council shall be able to make a contract without requiring a seal. There is no value in sealing-wax at all, except this, that if you put on a bit of sealing-wax it requires another 10s.
§ MR. GERALD BALFOUR
said the Government was not able to accept the Amendment. He thought that the exemptions the honourable and learned Gentleman had mentioned were of very ancient date: one such exemption was, if he was not mistaken, under the Public Health Act of 1878.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
New clause proposed—
The proceeds of any licences payable under the Dublin Hackney Car and Carriage Act shall, after the passing of this Act, be paid to the corporation of Dublin."—(Mr. T. M. Healy.)
MR. T. M. HEALY
I must say that the right honourable Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer has given great care and attention to this Bill, and I think he will, in principle, accept this Amendment. Let me call attention to one or two facts. The Government get from Dublin 241 by means of the existing rate of 8d. in the £, in the metropolitan area, the sum of about £35,000 a year. Now, that is altogether outside the hackney car and carriage duty and outside the pawnbrokers' licence duty. I will deal in a moment with the pawnbrokers' licence, which is probably the most extraordinary case in the United Kingdom. Here are two taxes which have no parallel throughout Her Majesty's dominion. This 8d. tax, as I said, brings in £35,000 a year; therefore, the city of Dublin contributes towards a force, in respect of which it has no power to appoint or remove a constable, the sum of something like £40,000 a year. Now take the case of Belfast. Belfast is a far richer city than Dublin, and it is a far more disturbed city than Dublin. There the police are constantly on the move, and constantly getting their heads broken. How much does Belfast contribute to the Royal Irish Constabulary? That city of great manufactures contributes towards the Royal Irish Constabulary the noble sum of less than £15,000 a year. Not only is that true, but we have made recently a handsome gift to Her Majesty's Government: we built Richmond Gaol at a cost of £120,000. The Government took over that gaol and converted it into a bar racks, and the citizens of Dublin did not get one penny-piece of compensation; while, on the other hand, we gave you Pigeon House Fort for a nominal sum, and when we required it back for our main drainage scheme you charged no less than £60,000. At the moment the Corporation of Dublin are carrying out a main drainage scheme for the greater health of the troops. The Royal barracks at Dublin were for years in a most insanitary condition, and you spent large sums on the barracks in order to bring them out of that condition. In 1870 Her Majesty's Treasury issued a peremptory mandamus to the Corporation, telling them that if they did not carry out a main drainage scheme an Act would be passed taking the powers out of the hands of the Corporation, and calling upon the Board of Works to do it at the public expense. An offer was made by the Government of that day of a very large sum as a loan to the Corporation. An estimate was made that 242 the sum needed would be something like £900,000, and the Government themselves were shocked at this large amount. Pressure was brought to bear by the Board of Works, and the Corporation came forward with a great scheme of sanitary reform which will take seven years to carry out, and the expense of which will have to be borne by a little town like Dublin, though the benefit is shared by the troops. What is it we are asking by this proposal of mine tonight? We are asking for the interception of two taxes, neither of which have any parallel in any city, not only in the United Kingdom, but in the habitable globe. You put on, first, 8d. in the £, which, I believe, is an unconstitutional tax, under the Act of Union, upon the metropolitan area, and not content with your 8d. in the £ you, in addition, place the car and carriage tax on Dublin. The pawnbroking case is a worse case still. By an Act of Parliament intended to create a watch for the city of Dublin the sum of £100, Irish, was levied on the pawnbrokers within the metropolitan area in Dublin. The English Parliament was kind enough to step in, after the passing of the Act of Union, and, by a private Act, made it £100 Irish, thereby putting an increased tax upon the subject. You have no more claim to these sums than you have to the coats on our backs. That has no parallel in any country over which the British flag flies. Why should Dublin pay more than Belfast. That city of riot and disorder pays £15,000 a year for its police, and poor, quiet-loving Dublin has to pay £40,000. The more shame on you for that. It is an extraordinary thing that we have to debate this matter without the presence of a single Treasury official. The right honourable Gentleman has no answer to my case, historically, financially, or comparatively. It is an extraordinary thing that he does not take up what I call the Irish view of the case and say to the Treasury that they ought to make this remission. Let me remind you of what the Chancellor of the Exchequer said on Tuesday. He promised that if the Irish Secretary made any demand upon him he would be most happy to honour him. His led us to believe that. That was a statement in the House. Upon that the Government obtained a very 243 large majority. The right honourable Gentleman did not hear the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Well, that is a great misfortune. There is a plain case for justice. This pawn-broking tax is not enforced in any other city in the kingdom, and neither is the hackney car duty. Every city is allowed to retain the tax themselves. I have given you most powerful reasons for saying that the Corporation of Dublin is entitled to an exemption and abatement. I will revert to the subject again and again, for the treatment of Dublin by the Government has been most unhandsome; and I think the right honourable Gentleman has failed in his duty as Irish Secretary in not representing this case to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. We do not know what goes on behind the scenes, but let him, I say, if he finds the Chancellor of the Exchequer does not yield, come forward in this House, and we will support him against the Chancellor of the Exchequer, with a result that will satisfy the House and force the Chancellor of the Exchequer to yield. But the Irish Secretary, instead of speaking with an Irish accent, which, I think, he might very easily acquire by paying greater attention to the debates in this House, simply maintains what I would call a Downing Street drawl.
§ MR. GERALD BALFOUR
said the tax was, as the honourable Gentleman had said, not, indeed, remitted, but intercepted. So far as the Treasury was concerned the result would be the same, because, if this tax was no longer devoted towards the expense of the Dublin metropolitan police, it would have to be supplied from another source. The distinction drawn by the honourable and learned Member between a tax remitted and a tax intercepted did not appear to him to have very much force. If the Amendment was carried the result would be that the tax would go on. He could not undertake in the Local Government Bill that the present arrangements should be revised. Whether they ought to be revised or not was a matter on which he did not feel called upon to express an opinion.
§ MR. CLANCY
It was not to be expected that the right honourable Gentleman would give way on this subject. They never give way on the Trea- 244 sury bench, except under extreme pressure, and unfortunately we are not able to exert that extreme pressure. But, really, I thought myself that he must have taken heart of grace on this matter at least, because the tax which the honourable and learned Member for Louth purposes to transfer to the Corporation is quite analogous to the produce of local license duties, which he, himself, has transferred by this very Bill to the local authorities in Dublin. Consequently I really heard with amazement the right honourable Gentleman making a point of order that an Amendment of this kind was not to be moved. It was entirely analogous to his own proposal in this Bill. The precedent thereby established, I beg to warn the right honourable Gentleman, will be taken advantage of, and private Members will renew the attempt made this evening. On the last occasion on which this subject was discussed in the House of Commons his reference to the matter was very disingenuous. He stated, in answer to a question, that these local license duties went in aid of local rates in Dublin, because they went to keep the metropolitan police. Nothing could be more mistaken. The arrangement between the Corporation and the Government is that the Government shall pay a certain stipulated proportion of the cost of the metropolitan police. I presume that what every honest man took to mean by this is that they have to pay the stipulated proportion out of Imperial funds. But they do not pay it out of Imperial funds; they pay part of it out of this local fund and then, in addition to that, they get the full proportion of 8d. in the £ besides. I do not intend to be offensive, but I thought his reference to that subject the other night was extremely disingenuous, whether he knew it or not. The arrangement as carried out by the Government is absolutely dishonest. ["Oh!"] Who says, "Oh!"? If I were talking about a thing which the honourable Gentleman knew anything about I might accept that interruption, but I hear him interrupting on a subject of which he knows nothing at all. I suppose there is no use in discussing the matter any further. The right honourable Gentleman will not give way; and I assure him he has not heard the last of this by any means, 245 and that, Session after Session, attempts will be made to get justice done to Dublin in this matter.
MR. T. M. HEALY
I am sorry the Chancellor of the Exchequer is not present to have the authorised Treasury view on the subject. I think he would have had some difficulty in getting up and defending the present arrangement. In the first place this tax does not exist in any part of the United Kingdom—so I am informed. In addition to that fact there is this further, that Dublin City, by a 8d. rate, contributes something like £35,000 towards the upkeep of the police, over the management of which they have no control whatever. I quite understand it being argued that Dublin should contribute something to the upkeep of the police force, but the Dublin. Corporation ought to have some control over it. I trust that the Government will reconsider this matter.
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir M. HICKS BEACH,) Bristol, W.
Mr. Speaker, this is not an ordinary Excise licence, for if it were it would be transferred under the Bill to the local authorities. It is a licence imposed under the Dublin Carriage Act, in which it was provided that a certain licence fee should be imposed in order that the expense incurred by the inspection and licensing of cabs should be paid. That is the reason for the tax.
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER
I daresay, but I do not think the corporation would do it as well. But, if honourable Members will allow me to explain, I will say that this is not, as they suppose, a matter confined to Dublin, but it is precisely a similar system to that which now exists in London. I think they will see that they cannot complain of unfair treatment in the matter. I have explained under what Statute the charge was made, and for what reason it was made, and as to the question of cost, I believe, roughly speaking, that the amount produced is about as much as the system cost to maintain. Very well; but in the metropolis of London a precisely similar system exists, and the London 246 County Council have no more to do with the licensing of carriages than the Dublin Corporation have under this Act. The whole thing is done by the police, and the annual sum involved is ten times as much as in Dublin. As for the receipt from this licence in London, it goes, not to the London County Council, but in relief of the police expenditure, which is borne by the Government. The amount is something like £36,000 a year, and it is paid on precisely a similar tax and for a precisely similar reason that this tax is paid in Dublin. It is so much in diminution of the actual cost of the police, and Dublin is upon the same footing as London in that respect.
MR. T. M. HEALY
I cannot reply, and I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment, but I assure the right honourable Gentleman that we take a very different view of the matter from that which he has put forward.
§ Motion and clause, by leave withdrawn.
Nothing in this Act relating to the name by which any rate is to be known shall affect the existing qualification for the parliamentary franchise, and the non-payment of any rate bonâ fide, made for the relief of the poor, and not of any other rate, shall work a disqualification as heretofore, and the amount of such rate shall be separately shown on every demand note."—(Mr. T. M. Healy.)
MR. T. M. HEALY
This is an Amendment in regard to the franchise which I do not think the Government can refuse. The right honourable Gentleman admitted yesterday that this Bill deals with the Parliamentary franchise, and by an Amendment which he incorporated in his Bill he provided that the power of electorate shall not be affected by a certain alteration of the register. Sir, the question now is this: are they really going to impose an additional disability on voters in 247 Ireland which is not at present imposed upon them, by doubling the rate, by including what is not the poor rate, but a county rate? That seems to me to be a very strong thing indeed to do anywhere. Throughout England, as I understand, it has never been suggested that anything but the payment of the poor rate should be made the qualifying or disqualifying right for the exercise of the franchise. This Bill for the first time conglomerates, under the name of the poor rate, other rates, the non-payment of which would be a disqualification, for the purposes of the Franchise Act. It is, of course, inevitable that that must be the result of the construction of the Statute. But that state of things, as I understand, does not exist in England. The right honourable Gentleman is well aware that it does not exist in England to the same extent, at all events, as may be the case here. I quite agree that there are rates which are not poor rates which are called-poor rates, but I have never seen a decision that, by non-payment of those rates, which were other than poor rates, the right of exercising the franchise was affected. You may say that it is not an inevitable conclusion under the Statute that by the non-payment of rates other than poor rates the exercise of the franchise will in future be affected; but I think that is the inevitable conclusion. I may be wrong, but I gather from the intimation of the right honourable Gentleman that I am right. If it is admitted that I am right, it follows that you are now attaching a disqualification which never previously existed, and doing that by means of a Local Government Bill which never was intended to have that operation. This may have been done in the Parliament of 1867, which was not a democratic Parliament. It was a Parliament elected upon a very high franchise, and that Parliament required that payment of the poor rates should be a qualifying condition of the franchise. Are we now in a Parliament which has been returned upon the existing qualifications going to allow the franchise to be affected because we are getting a Local Government Bill for a wholly different purpose? It seems to me a most reactionary proposal, for it will impose a 248 disability by requiring that the whole tax shall be paid in order to obtain the franchise. Observe the effect in the case of a man under £4. His poor rate is now paid by the landlord, but in future he will have to pay it himself, and if he gets any deduction his vote is gone. It will be the same with regard to the county cess, of which he only pays half. Therefore, I say this Bill strikes a blow at the franchise which, it was never intended it should do. In the city of Derry, in Tyrone, and in all the Ulster constituencies, the effect of this Bill must be to diminish the vote in a substantial manner, and to practically affect the balance of Parties. My right honourable and learned Friend the Member for North Tyrone, who succeeded in getting a very small majority for his last Amendment, will find that it will have a far greater effect upon his career than any Amendment about bicycles. He resisted me a few moments ago, but I think I have now come substantially to his relief, and I trust he will show his gratitude accordingly.
§ MR. GERALD BALFOUR
The honourable and learned Gentleman has told us that he must be either right or wrong, but I may be allowed to point out that if he was right in one part of his speech he was wrong in another. He is perfectly right in supposing that the provision we have introduced into this Bill will cause a change, but, in spite of that, he is wrong in supposing that it does not include charges similar to those which in Ireland have been hitherto paid under the name of the poor rate. As a matter of fact, in order to obtain the franchise it is necessary in England that a person should pay the poor rate, which in county districts includes almost the whole of the rates. Therefore, so far as we are by this Bill making any change at all, we are doing very little else than assimilating the law of Ireland in this respect to that of England. But, Sir, I must ask the House to observe this. We propose in our Bill, and everybody admits that it constitutes a great boon, to consolidate the poor rate and the county cess, and we cannot consolidate those two rates unless both are included under the head of poor rate. If the 249 Amendment of the honourable and learned Member was to be accepted, it would be impossible to demand payment of the poor rate and the county cess. If the consolidation we propose is to be a real and true consolidation, we believe it is absolutely necessary that we should make the provision we have made with regard to the poor rate. Sir, I would remind the House of this one fact. At the present time the payment of a tax required in Ireland in order to qualify for the franchise is the poor rate; but, Sir, in future, the amount to be paid for the poor rate and the county cess taken together will be very much less than what is at present paid by the tenant. I think it is only fair to recollect that fact, and to recollect at the same time that we are only doing in Ireland what has long ago been done in England. Act after Act in England has included similar taxes in the poor rate, and in providing that that tax is to be paid in order to qualify for the franchise in Ireland, we are only following the precedent already established in England.
§ MR. SERJEANT HEMPHILL
I quite agree with my honourable and learned Friend the Member for Louth, with whom I am in the most friendly relations, that this is one of the most important questions we have to consider. Now, the Chief Secretary has very fairly and candidly admitted that the object of this Bill is to render it necessary in order to qualify for the franchise that the voter should pay not only the rate in support of the poor, but also the county cess. But that is an altogether new departure in Ireland from the registration law, and it is a most unjust and most unreasonable attempt to disfranchise a large proportion of the community. The right honourable Gentleman has referred to the franchise in England. I have carefully looked over the Act of 1888, which is the model for this Act, and I cannot find in that Act anything at all equivalent to the consolidation of the poor's rate and the county cess which appears in the present Bill. What is the effect of this clause? The occupying tenant will have to prove that he had paid the half of the county cess, and also that he has 250 paid half the poor's rate in order to qualify him to be put upon the register. That is altering the whole foundation upon which the constituencies are entitled to send representatives to Parliament. I doubt very much, Mr. Speaker, whether, in the light thrown upon it by the admission of the Chief Secretary, such an alteration is within the purview of this Bill at all, because it affects the general law of registration. As I have been reminded by my honourable and learned Friend, the northern constituencies of Ireland will, many of them, be practically disfranchised. That may be a great benefit to some Gentlemen sitting on the opposite side of the House, but in regard to those who sit on this side, I say it is most unfair. I do not qualify the expression. I think it is most unfair and unjust to alter the whole of the representative system of Ireland by a side wind like this. Let it not be misunderstood. The tenants in Dublin and other towns will now have to prove that they pay the whole of the consolidated rates. I happen to have present to my mind the case of a citizen of Dublin, who is not very far off from where I am now standing, who pays in round numbers £35 for the municipal rate, and about £17 for the poor's rate and water tax. Now, under this Bill, in order to entitle him to the franchise, he will have to prove that he has paid the whole £50 before the 1st of January in any year, whereas at present he would only have to prove that he had paid the £17. In Dublin, and other places, the poor's rate is not one moiety of what I may call this consolidated rate; and in the country it is practically the same thing. The tenant now has to pay half the poor's rate in substance in order to qualify for the franchise. Well, we are not complaining of that, because we cannot deal with the question, although it has always been a blot upon the representative system of this country that it should be made auxiliary to the collection of the rates, because the right to send representatives to Parliament to express the will of the people, and to voice the opinion of the people, should be altogether independent of these fiscal arrangements for the maintenance of the poor-house or any other 251 institutions. But the law is so. Those who have read the history of legislation in this country will know that for years it was contested that registration should be made merely an auxiliary of the payments of the poor's rate, but now we are going a step further. We are going to effect in this indirect way what I respectfully submit to this House is a revolution, because we are saying that whereas hitherto it was only necessary to pay the poor's rate in order to obtain the right-to the franchise, you must henceforth prove payment of all rates necessary for the maintenance of roads and lunatic asylums and infirmaries, and various county authorities. I respectfully and most strongly appeal to the Government to accept this Amendment. The subject was mooted before on the Second Reading of the Bill, and I made a few observations upon it, but I was then under the impression that although the words "poor's rate" were used, the effect of the Act would be that the collector would discriminate the poor's rate into its component parts, and that the liability of the voter would still remain the same, independent of pounds, shillings, and pence. I wish to state that there would be no difficulty in doing that, because the collector would only have to take the trouble of putting two columns in the manner with which we are familiar in Ireland, in order to distinguish the poor's rate from the water rates and the police rates, and the other different constituents which make up the consolidated rate. What difficulty would there be? It would be a mere clerical matter. There is no magic in the words "poor's rate," and there is no difficulty in discriminating between so much of this rate as would be equivalent to the old poor's rate, and so much that was equivalent to the county cess and other rates. I do confess that, in my opinion, if this Bill now becomes law, and it is to be declared and understood that in order to qualify to be placed upon the list of voters you must prove the payment of the entire rates imposed by this Act, the grossest injustice will be done to Ireland, and it will create such a clamour as will completely overwhelm any advantage that might be derived from this Measure; because, after all, whether we sit in this 252 Parliament or in a Parliament on College Green, what we prize and treasure most is the right of the people to send into the Senate their representatives to proclaim and, if possible, to remedy the grievances of their fellow-countrymen.
§ MR. FLYNN (Cork, N.)
It is obvious that if the Government pass this clause as it stands, they will make a serious change in the position of the ratepayer in regard to the Parliamentary franchise. I have always thought that there was no necessary connection between the payment of rates and the right of the occupier to the Parliamentary franchise. At present the landlord pays a portion of the poor's rate, and this clause will have the effect of disfranchising a large number of working men in Cork who have paid their part of the rates regularly, and are entitled to the franchise. This Bill may disqualify them because of the non-payment of the consolidated rate, but, surely, it has been made quite clear that they ought not to be placed in a worse position with regard to the exercise of the franchise.
§ MR. JORDAN (Fermanagh, S.)
Allow me to say that I think the ratepayers must be placed in a worse position under this Bill than they have been in previously. The average poor's rate is 8½d. in the £, and the county cess 2s., which would be 2s. 8½d. in all. The rural ratepayer has to pay half that amount, 1s. 4¼d., in order that he may qualify for the franchise, as against having to pay only 8½d. previously. In fact, the rural ratepayer will have to pay double what he has had to pay in order that he may have the franchise, and I protest, in the strongest possible manner, against the rural ratepayers in the county which I represent having to pay double the former amount, even if the total is diminished by the consolidation of the rate, before they can obtain the franchise.
§ MR. ATKINSON
All ratepayers in the county will be in exactly the same position, except for this, that the rural ratepayer will get the agricultural grant and the town ratepayer will not. It is quite obvious that, inasmuch as the county council will administer both the poor rate and the county cess, no person can have a vote unless he pays the conjoint rate. If the Parliamentary voter and the Irish Local Government voter have different qualifications, it necessarily follows that there must be two revisions. Is it worth while to involve the delay and expense of finding out, first, who has paid the poor rate and who has paid the poor rate and county cess in addition? I submit that it is hardly necessary, for the sake of meeting the case of a comparatively few persons, to incur the cost of a double revision.
§ MR. M. HEALY
I must say that the argument of the Attorney General is a very remarkable one. It amounts to this: that there is no hardship upon rural districts, because of the assistance provided by the agricultural grant. Yes, Sir, but the towns are not benefited by this grant at all, and it is the areas which derive no benefit whatever from the agricultural grant which the Government have selected to inflict this additional expense upon. A clause in the Bill provides that, whether a rate is analogous to county cess or not, the borough council can make that rate a poor rate, and consequently make the payment of it a condition of exercising the franchise. In other words, where there is a Conservative town council the Government provide it with a fresh weapon for disfranchising the Nationalist Party. Now, I can understand a proposal which would apply equally all over Ireland, and equally in rural districts, but to place this power in the hands of a particular corporation, and to make that corporation the judge of what should and what should not be essential for obtaining the Parliamentary franchise is the most startling proposal I have ever heard. When the proposal was introduced I confess that I took it to be merely introduced for the purpose of facilitating the collection of rates, and of making the business of town councils easy; but it is evidently a device for 254 the further disfranchisement of the Nationalist Party in cities like Dublin and Derry. I do not think that the Government can seriously contemplate a proposition of this kind, and I will only say, in conclusion, that, having carefully read the Amendment which has been placed on the Paper on the Report stage, it is, in my mind, calculated to make the Bill worse in this respect than it was before, because the effect of the consolidated rate now proposed will be to make it harder for the poor to obtain the Parliamentary franchise. It seems to me a most iniquitous proposal, and I really am surprised that the Government should have introduced it in this Bill.
§ MR. J. H. M. CAMPBELL (Dublin, St. Stephen's Green)
I should like to say a word in opposition to this clause, but I would like, in the first place, to point out the fallacy which appears to exist in the minds of honourable Members opposite as to the effect in the city of Dublin of this clause, or, rather, of the proposal contained in the Bill itself. It seems to be the idea of the right honourable and learned Gentleman opposite, the Member for North Tyrone, and also of some other honourable Members who spoke on the same side, that the effect of this clause in the city of Dublin will be to disfranchise a number of Nationalist voters. Let me say that, so far as this clause is concerned—and I speak against this clause from purely disinterested motives—if it has any effect at all in that way, it will be to disfranchise the constituency which did me the honour to support me, and for this reason—I can give the actual figures to my honourable Friends opposite if they wish them—that in the three divisions of Dublin 80 per cent. of the voters are half-occupiers, who do not pay one shilling of the rates; and in the St. Stephen's Green division no fewer than 50 per cent. of them are occupiers who live in tenement houses, and who do not subscribe directly one shilling towards the rates. I know it may be said they pay indirectly, but certainly, in the majority of cases, the occupiers of those tenement houses do not contribute one shilling directly to the rates. Therefore, so far from the clause having the effect of disfranchising the Nationalist voters in the city of Dublin, the effect will be to disfranchise the Unionist voters, only 255 a small minority of whom possess the property franchise. But it is not fair or proper to discuss the effect of this clause upon particular constituencies. I think, however, both sides of the House are agreed as to the difficulty of having one consolidated rate and one collection. Now, as I understand the suggestion of my honourable and learned Friend the Member for North Louth, it is that without sanctioning the demand for a consolidated rate, the collector should distinguish between the original portion of the poor rate and the new portion which has been added to it, for the purpose of making the consolidated rate. But what advantage will that confer on the ratepayer unless he is at liberty to discharge his obligations in full by paying only the portion that represents the poor rate? If he pays a sum equivalent to the old poor rate, is he to be entitled to get a receipt on account? If he is, what will be the result? For the purpose of qualifying for the franchise he will insist that he was paying poor rate, but when the collector calls for the balance he will say it was not the poor rate at all, but the new portion which was consolidated with the old poor rate. It is quite true that in the present practice the rate collector serves a notice which distinguishes the different portions that make up the consolidated rate, but he does not accept, nor has he any authority to accept, a portion of the rate. It will lead to most extraordinary confusion, and it will render the collection of the consolidated rate a practical impossibility in many parts of Ireland. I do not believe the clause will have the effect of disfranchising a single vote in the interests of honourable Members opposite; any effect it will have will be in the opposite direction. Certainly, if this clause is adopted, it will render the collection of the consolidated rate a practical impossibility, and it will lead to the utmost confusion, not merely in the segregation of the two franchises, as has been pointed out by my right honourable Friend the Attorney General for Ireland, but it will also necessitate additional expense, while it will render impossible the collection of the consolidated rate in many parts of Ireland.
§ MR. J. P. FARRELL
I must say that I have heard with great alarm the statement from the Treasury Bench. I think 256 it conveys to the ordinary mind the fear that if the clause is added to the Bill a considerable portion of voters in Ireland will be disfranchised. Hitherto there have been a collection for the county cess and a collection for the poor rate. Neither of those collections clashed; they were all at separate times, and in that way it was much easier to meet the obligations imposed by Statute. But under this Bill, Sir, the occupier will be presented with a bill for the whole amount, and I say, Sir, that that will give to landlords who are not very desirous, perhaps, of having numbers of Nationalist voters on the roll an additional chance of disfranchising them. Of course, it is quite natural for the honourable Member for St. Stephen's Green to make a good case in his own interest, but the operations of this clause will affect other divisions of the city of Dublin, because there is no power of compulsion in respect of the poor rate. I certainly enter the strongest protest against this proposal.
§ MR. DILLON
I have always opposed the mixing up of two things which have no natural relation to each other in the slightest possible degree—namely, the payment of rates and the right to the franchise. If a tax collector can make a man pay his rates, he ought to do so apart altogether from the question of the franchise. It is, I suppose, to be regarded as one of the compromises arrived at since the franchise has been broadened in this country, that a man cannot have the franchise unless he pays the rates before certain dates. Now, what will happen in Ireland? In many of the northern constituencies in Ireland the rate collector will abstain from putting any pressure on the ratepayers until after an election, in order that the voters shall not be disfranchised; so that, while you are making an attempt to delude the House of Commons into the notion that this provision is to assist the collector of rates, in many cases it will act in an opposite direction. The Attorney General attempted in his speech to put forward the proposition that men were not compelled, as the price of their disfranchisement, to pay their rates. Sir, they are compelled. They are under an obligation to pay their rates, whether they are on the voters' list or not. I may point out that the payment of these rates depends a good deal upon the 257 activity of the rate collectors. I object strongly to the extension of the principle. The proper course would be to abolish absolutely the condition that the payment of this consolidated rate conferred the franchise. Some arrangement ought to be made by which it shall not be made more difficult for a man to get the Parliamentary franchise in consequence of the non-payment of rates.
§ SIR J. COLOMB (Great Yarmouth)
The honourable Member for East Mayo has called the attention of the House to the fact that the rate collector may have it in his power to disfranchise a large body of people, but I would point out that these rate collectors will be the servants of popularly elected bodies, of bodies elected on a broad franchise——
§ MR. DILLON
My remarks referred only to districts where one political party or another may be in power.
§ SIR J. COLOMB
These rate collectors will be the servants of popularly-elected bodies, and I do not see how there can be any foundation for the honourable Member's suggestion that they will be allowed to use their power for political purposes.
§ MR. MURNAGHAN (Tyrone, Mid)
If the right honourable and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland refuses this clause he will disfranchise about one-fifth of the whole of the county of Tyrone. I listened to the remarks of the right honourable Gentleman, and I must say he placed the matter in a more roseate light and in a different light from what I know to be the case. Supposing the Government proposals are passed, an occupier in the county of Tyrone, instead of paying 6d. in the £, as has hitherto been the case, will have to pay something like 2s. 3d. or 2s. 6d.—an increase of 500 per cent.—before he is entitled to exercise the franchise. This is a very serious matter, and one which honourable Members on this side of the House ought to protest against. It is not a political question, it is a question that goes to the very roots of the rights of the people, and we will be neglecting our duty if we sit silently here and allow the Government to disfranchise one-fourth or one-fifth of the Nationalists of Ireland. I 258 take it that these people will not be able to contribute this large amount of money, and the result will be that they will be disfranchised. The right honourable and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland might take this matter into consideration, and postpone it until perhaps Monday or Tuesday, when he will have had time to work out some remedy which will not go in the direction of disfranchising people.
§ MR. CLANCY
The honourable Member for Cork [Mr. M. Healy] has suggested that clause 47 of the Bill is a mere clause for facilitating the collection of rates, and he thought also that he was justified in saying that it had a political object. I desire, therefore, to test the intentions of the Government, and I suggest that they should put into the Bill a provision in regard to municipal taxes as apart from non-municipal taxes, such as occurs in clause 68—A council levying a separate rate for the purpose of this section shall make, levy, and collect the same upon the same basis and in like manner as the poor rate, and all enactments relating to the poor rate shall apply accordingly, with the exception that a person shall not be disqualified for being registered as a Parliamentary or Local Government elector by reason of the non-payment of any such separate rate.A rate may be struck by the Corporation of Dublin for the expenses to be incurred under this section relating to the collection of general rates, but by adopting such a provision as this the payment of that rate shall not be a condition of the franchise. If the Government have no intention of disfranchising anyone, but merely desire to facilitate the collection of rates, they ought to insert in the Bill a provision for the collection of municipal rates as distinct from non-municipal rates, and that will afford some protection to the electors.
§ MR. GERALD BALFOUR
said the Bill as it stood merely assimilated the law of Ireland to the law of England. He opposed the clause on the ground that its acceptance would prevent the consolidation of the poor law rate and the county cess.
§ LORD E. FITZMAURICE
I do not think the House will have cause to regret 259 that at a rather late stage of this Bill we have had a discussion upon this important point.
§ LORD E. FITZMAURICE
When the Bill was brought in I do not think the effect of clauses 47 and 68 was fully apprehended. We have heard a good deal from the law officers of the Crown with regard to the practice in England, but I cannot help thinking these honourable and learned Gentlemen rather under-estimate the difficulties. It is true that the poor rate in England, in country districts, is practically made to include everything. It is a consolidated rate, but in urban districts that is not so. Attention has been specially called to the possible effects of clauses 47 and 68; unless the clauses have been entirely misread by honourable Members of this House, power is given to local authorities to consolidate poor rates and urban rates together, and in that case it will become a condition of a person being a Parliamentary voter that he should pay not only one set of rates, but also the other. As a matter of local government, that arrangement is a sound one, but why should you treat an improvement in local administration as a means of curtailing the Parliamentary franchise? We are told it is very difficult to obviate it, but surely some means might be devised whereby these rates might be charged separately. I cannot help thanking that some arrangements might be made. These difficulties cannot be got over if that is not done. In Ireland now, in order to obtain the Parliamentary franchise, the ratepayer only has to pay the poor rate, properly so-called, whereas if this is passed he will in future have to pay poor rate, including the county cess, and any other item which may be included. If Ireland obtains the control of its own police force, as in England, he will also have to pay a police rate, and then there will come to be included the house and highway
§ rate as distinct from the county main roads, sanitary rates, parochial rates, and any others which Parliament, in its wisdom, may include in local rating powers, and may be ordered to be collected in that way. I think we have arrived at a point where, I will admit, most unintentionally——
§ LORD E. FITZMAURICE
The right honourable Gentleman the Chief Secretary says intentionally. I did not wish to say that. I wished to give him the credit of not desiring to curtail the Parliamentary vote in Irish towns. I think we have unintentionally stumbled on a difficulty, and if the Government, in their wisdom, cannot hold out some hope with regard to clause 47, which must end necessarily in the curtailment of the Parliamentary franchise, I am afraid there is only one course to adopt, and that is to carry the matter to a Division.
§ MR. POWER (Waterford, E.)
I think this raises an important point; it raises in certain cases a new complication. In rural districts it makes little difference, but certainly in towns the effect is considerable. Those who are on the Parliamentary franchise now only have to pay the poor rate, but in future they will not only have to pay the poor but the police rate, and any other rates which are collected in this manner. It will confer very few advantages on ratepayers in the towns, and it will make the franchise more difficult for those who live in the counties. It will make it almost impossible in some cases for those who are on the franchise now—they would have a very great difficulty in getting upon it in the future.
That the clause be read as second time.
§ The House divided:—Ayes 99; Noes 180.—(Division List No. 195.)263
|Abraham, Wm. (Cork, N.E.)||Austin, M. (Limerick, W.)||Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson|
|Allan, William (Gateshead)||Billson, Alfred||Caldwell, James|
|Allen, W. (Newc.-under-Lyme)||Bolton, Thomas Dolling||Carew, James Laurence|
|Ashton, Thomas Gair||Brigg, John||Carvill, Patrick G. Hamilton|
|Asquith, Rt. Hon. H. H.||Broadhurst, Henry||Clancy, John Joseph|
|Clough, Walter Owen||Johnson-Ferguson, J. E.||Power, Patrick Joseph|
|Colville, John||Joicey, Sir James||Price, Robert John|
|Condon, Thomas Joseph||Jones, W. (Carnarvonshire)||Provand, Andrew Dryburgh|
|Crean, Eugene||Jordan, Jeremiah||Randell, David|
|Crilly, Daniel||Kearley, Hudson E.||Redmond, William (Clare)|
|Curran, Thomas B. (Donegal)||Kilbride, Denis||Rickett, J. Compton|
|Curran, Thomas (Sligo, S.)||Lawson, Sir W. (Cumberland)||Roberts, John H. (Denbighs)|
|Daly, James||Leng, Sir John||Roche, Hon. J. (E. Kerry)|
|Dillon, John||Leuty, Thomas Richmond||Shaw, Charles E. (Stafford)|
|Donelan, Captain A.||Macaleese, Daniel||Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)|
|Doogan, P. C.||MacDonnell, Dr. M.A. (Qu'n's C.)||Sinclair, Capt. J. (Forfarsh.)|
|Esmonde, Sir Thomas||MacNeill, John Gordon S.||Smith, Samuel (Flint)|
|Evans, S. T. (Glamorgan)||McDermott, Patrick||Soames, Arthur Wellesley|
|Farrell, J. P. (Cavan, W.)||McKenna, Reginald||Steadman, William Charles|
|Field, William (Dublin)||McLaren, Charles Benjamin||Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)|
|Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond||McLeod, John||Sullivan, T. D. (Donegal, W.)|
|Flavin, Michael Joseph||Maddison, Fred.||Thomas, D. A. (Merthyr)|
|Flynn, James Christopher||Mandeville, J. Francis||Tuite, James|
|Foster, Sir W. (Derby Co.)||Molloy, Bernard Charles||Wedderburn, Sir William|
|Fox, Dr. Joseph Francis||Morton, E. J. C. (Devonport)||Williams, J. Carvell (Notts)|
|Gilhooly, James||Murnaghan, George||Wilson, John (Govan)|
|Goddard, Daniel Ford||Norton, Captain Cecil Wm.|
|Hammond, John (Carlow)||Nussey, Thomas Willans||Woods, Samuel|
|Hayden, John Patrick||O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)||Young, Samuel (Cavan, E.)|
|Healy, Maurice (Cork)||O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary)||Yoxall, James Henry|
|Hemphill, Rt. Hon. C. H.||O'Connor, Arthur (Donegal)|
|Holburn, J. G.||O'Malley, William||TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. T. M. Healy and Mr. James O'Connor.|
|Holden, Sir Angus||Pickersgill, Edward Hare|
|Horniman, Frederick John||Pinkerton, John|
|Jameson, Major J. Eustace||Pirie, Duncan V.|
|Arnold, Alfred||Curzon, RtHonGN(Lancs, S.W)||Haslett, Sir James Horner|
|Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.||Curzon, Viscount (Bucks)||Hatch, Ernest Frederick G.|
|Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John||Dalrymple, Sir Charles||Helder, Augustus|
|Bagot, Capt. J. FitzRoy||Denny, Colonel||Hermon-Hodge, Robert T.|
|Balcarres, Lord||Digby, J. K. D. Wingfield-||Hill, Rt. Hn. Lord A. (Down)|
|Balfour,Rt.Hon.A.J.(Manc'r)||Doughty, George||Hoare, E. B. (Hampstead)|
|Balfour, Rt.Hon.G.W. (Leeds)||Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-||Hoare, Samuel (Norwich)|
|Banbury, Frederick George||Douglas-Pennant, Hon. E. S.||Howell, William Tudor|
|Barnes, Frederic Gorell||Drage, Geoffrey||Hubbard, Hon. Evelyn|
|Barry, RtHnAHSmith-(Hunts)||Drucker, A.||Hudson, George Bickersteth|
|Barton, Dunbar Plunket||Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V.||Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick|
|Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir M.H. (Brist'l)||Edwards, Gen. Sir J. B.||Jenkins, Sir John Jones|
|Bill, Charles||Fardell, Sir T. George||Johnston, William (Belfast)|
|Blundell, Colonel Henry||Fellowes, Hon. A. Edward||Johnstone, J. H. (Sussex)|
|Bousfield, William Robert||Finlay, Sir R. Bannatyne||Kemp, George|
|Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John||Firbank, Joseph Thomas||Kenrick, William|
|Brookfield, A. Montagu||Fisher, William Hayes||King, Sir Henry Seymour|
|Bullard, Sir Harry||FitzGerald, Sir R. Penrose-||Knowles, Lees|
|Butcher, John George||Fletcher, Sir Henry||Lafone, Alfred|
|Campbell, J. H. M. (Dublin)||Flower, Ernest||Laurie, Lieut.-General|
|Carlile, William Walter||Galloway, William Johnson||Lawrence, W. F. (Liverpool)|
|Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs)||Garfit, William||Lawson, J. Grant (Yorks)|
|Cavendish, V.C.W.(Derbysh.)||Gedge, Sydney||Lecky, Rt. Hon. W. E. H.|
|Cecil, E. (Hertford, E.)||Gibbs, Hon. V. (St. Albans)||Legh, Hon. T. W. (Lancs)|
|Chaloner, Captain R. G. W.||Giles, Charles Tyrrell||Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie|
|Chamberlain, Rt.Hn.J.(Birm.)||Gordon, Hon. John Edward||Llewellyn, E. H. (Somerset)|
|Chamberlain, J. A. (Worc'r)||Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir J. E.||Llewelyn, Sir Dillwyn-(Sw'ns'a)|
|Charrington, Spencer||Goschen, Rt. Hn. G.J. (St. G'rg's)||Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.|
|Chelsea, Viscount||Goschen, G. J. (Sussex)||Loder, G. W. Erskine|
|Clarke, Sir E. (Plymouth)||Goulding, Edward Alfred||Long, Col. C. W. (Evesham)|
|Cochrane, Hon. T. H. A. E.||Green, W. D. (Wednesbury)||Long, Rt. Hon. W. (Liverp'l)|
|Coghill, Douglas Harry||Greene, H. D. (Shrewsbury)||Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller|
|Cohen, Benjamin Louis||Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs)||Lorne, Marquess of|
|Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse||Gretton, John||Lowles, John|
|Colomb, Sir J. C. Ready||Gull, Sir Cameron||Lucas-Shadwell, William|
|Colston, C. E. H. Athole||Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord G.||Macartney, W. G. Ellison|
|Cooke, C. W. R. (Hereford)||Hanbury, Rt. Hon. R. W.||McCalmont, Maj-Gn. (Ant'm N)|
|Cripps, Charles Alfred||Hare, Thomas Leigh||McCalmont, Col.J.(Antrim,E.)|
|McKillop, James||Rasch, Major Frederic Carne||Tomlinson, W. E. Marray|
|Mellor, Colonel (Lancashire)||Renshaw, Charles Bine||Valentia, Viscount|
|Melville, Beresford Valentine||Rentoul, James Alexander||Warde, Lt.-Col. C. E. (Kent)|
|Milward, Colonel Victor||Richards, Henry Charles||Webster, R. G. (St. Pancras)|
|Monk, Charles James||Richardson, Sir T. (Hartlep'l)||Webster, Sir R. E. (I. of W.)|
|Moon, Edward Robert Pacy||Ridley, Rt. Hon. Sir M. W.||Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon|
|Morgan, Hn. F. (Monm'thsh.)||Ritchie, Rt. Hon. C. T.||Wharton, Rt. Hon. J. L.|
|Morrell, George Herbert||Robertson, H. (Hackney)||Whiteley, H. (Ashton-under-L.)|
|Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)||Royds, Clement Molyneux||Whittaker, Thomas Palmer|
|Mount, William George||Russell, Gen. F. S. (Chelt'm)||Williams, Col. R. (Dorset)|
|Murray, Rt. Hn. A. G. (Bute)||Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)||Williams, J. Powell (Birm.)|
|Murray, C. J. (Coventry)||Rutherford, John||Willox, Sir John Archibald|
|Newdigate, Francis Alexander||Saunderson, Col. E. James||Wodehouse, E. R. (Bath)|
|Nicol, Donald Ninian||Scoble, Sir Andrew Richard||Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm|
|Northcote, Hon. Sir H. S.||Shaw-Stewart, M.H.(Renfrew)||Wylie, Alexander|
|Orr-Ewing, Charles L.||Sidebottom, W. (Derbysh.)||Wyndham-Quin, Maj. W. H.|
|Parkes, Ebenezer||Skewes-Cox, Thomas||Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy|
|Pease, Arthur (Darlington)||Stanley, Lord (Lancs)||Young, Commander (Berks, E.)|
|Phillpotts, Captain Arthur||Stock, James Henry|
|Plunkett, Rt. Hn. H. C.||Stone, Sir Benjamin||TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.|
|Pretyman, Ernest George||Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley|
|Priestley, Sir W. O. (Edin.)||Sturt, Hon. Humphry N.|
|Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward||Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)|
|Purvis, Robert||Thornton, Percy M.|
Resolutions agreed to.
Another proposed Amendment—
Nothing in this Act contained shall authorise any alteration in the existing boundaries of the borough of Clonmel, as defined by the Clonmel Corporation Act, 1895, and as amended and extended by the Clonmel Corporation Provisional Order, 1897, confirmed by the Act of the 60th and 61st years of Victoria, chapter 82.
Nothing in this Act shall alter the provisions of section 58 of the Clonmel Corporation Act, 1895, as amended and extended by the Clonmel Corporation Provisional Order, 1897, confirmed by the Act of the 60th and 61st years of Victoria, chapter 82.—(Mr. Condon.)
§ MR. CONDON
said that the clause he now proposed was a very simple one, and he trusted the Chief Secretary would have no objection to accept it. There appeared to be some doubt whether the privileges enjoyed by the corporation of Clonmel under the special Acts referred to in the Amendment would not be interfered with by this Bill, and the sole object of the Amendment was to secure existing rights.
§ MR. GERALD BALFOUR
I can assure the honourable Member that there is absolutely no intention whatever to alter the existing boundaries of Clonmel or any other borough, and there is nothing in the Bill which can affect rights or privileges conferred by Special Acts. Under these circumstances, I think, it would be very unwise to put in the Bill clauses which were absolutely unnecessary. By inserting clauses spe- 264 cially conserving the rights of Clonmel, some doubt might be thrown upon the position of other boroughs; it might be suggested that there is something in the Bill altering the terms of other local Acts. In that way this effort to do special justice to Clonmel might lead to injustice to other boroughs. We cannot accept the proposed clause.
§ MR. CONDON
After the assurance of the right honourable Gentleman, I do not desire to press the clauses.
§ Motions and clauses, by leave, withdrawn.
In the construction of the Poor Law Acts (Ireland) Amendment Act, 1890, the local authority levying the poor rate shall be substituted for the board of guardians, and sub-section 2 of section 2 of the said Act shall have effect only in cases in which the local authority have come to such determination as in the first sub-section of the said section is mentioned."—(Mr. Maurice Healy.)
§ MR. M. HEALY
This clause is of a rather technical description; and if the right honourable Gentleman will give some sign that he intends to accept it, it will not be necessary for me to lay the matter fully before the House.
§ MR. ATKINSON
As the clause stands we cannot accept it. By section 19 of the Bill the county council are already substituted for the board of guardians 265 for the purpose of levying the poor rate. With regard to the other portion of the clause, I have no objection to it.
§ MR. M. HEALY
Then I will move the clause, omitting the words—The local authority levying the poor rate shall be substituted for the board of guardians, and.
§ Clause, as amended, agreed to, and added to Bill.
Another clause proposed—
So much of the 38th section of the Tramways (Ireland) Act, 1860, as provides that such approval or disapproval as therein referred to shall have no effect unless it is determined on by a majority of not less than two-thirds of the members present is hereby repealed."—(Mr. Maurice Healy.)
§ MR. M. HEALY
Under the Bill as at stands power is given to a county council to construct a tramway by a bare majority; whilst, under the Tramways (Ireland) Act of 1860, in the case of county boroughs, it is necessary that there should be a two-thirds majority. I see no ground for that distinction, and I do not suppose that the Government will at this hour of the day attempt to support it. The two bodies are elected under exactly the same franchise, and exercise exactly the same powers, and why there should be a distinction in this matter of tramway construction I cannot imagine.
§ MR. GERALD BALFOUR
This clause makes a material amendment of the Tramway Act, and I notice that there are a number of new clauses on the Paper which propose to alter that Act. I admit that this is really a very small matter, and I do not object to the clause proposed, on the understanding that this shall not be taken as a precedent in respect of the other clauses amending the Tramways Act.
§ Clause agreed to, and added to the Bill.
New clause proposed—
Notwithstanding anything in this Act contained, the receipt of a collector of rates appointed by the council of any county borough for rates paid to him, or of the cashier of the borough or other officer appointed by the council to receive same for moneys paid to him, shall be a good discharge to the person paying the same. And the moneys so received may be carried to the credit of the separate fund or account to which the council are by law entitled to carry the same."—(Sir James Haslett.)
§ SIR J. HASLETT
The Bill, as now framed, makes the receipt of the treasurer alone a good receipt or discharge for the payment of any rate. That would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to carry out in a city like Belfast, and I propose to make the receipt of a rate collector, or borough cashier, or other properly appointed official a good discharge. Then, under the Bill, as framed, all the money received in county boroughs goes to one general fund. If we lock up all our rates in the borough fund, we are only able to get them out again for borough fund purposes. That would be utterly impracticable in the city of Belfast. I therefore propose that rates should be paid to a separate account.
§ MR. GERALD BALFOUR
The first part of the honourable Gentleman's proposal is covered by an Amendment which stands on the Paper in my name, to add to clause 41 the following proviso:—Provided that the receipt given by a collector of rates in the case of payment of rates, or, where the treasurer is a banking company, by the secretary or clerk of the council in the case of any payment unconnected with rates, shall be a good discharge to the person making the payment, but the amount of the payment shall be forthwith paid by such collector, secretary, or clerk to the treasurer.With regard to the second part of the proposed clause, I confess I hardly followed the honourable Gentleman's explanation of it, but if any provision of the kind is necessary it would be better, I think, to embody it as an Amendment to a subsequent clause.
§ SIR J. HASLETT
The words read out by the right honourable gentleman are satisfactory, so far as they go, but they do not cover the second branch of my proposed clause.
§ MR. GERALD BALFOUR
I would rather look into the matter before accepting the proposal of the honourable Gentleman. If any words are necessary I will move an Amendment to a subsequent clause.
§ MR. M. HEALY
I had intended to raise this question when the clause was before the House, but these financial provisions are so complicated that I did not feel myself competent to express an 267 opinion as to whether the Government proposals were right or not. I trust before section 41 is finally parted with the Government will consider whether something in the nature of the second branch of the honourable Gentleman's proposal is not necessary. In Cork and Belfast and other boroughs the borough fund is a very small part of the total income; other rates to a very large amount are levied, and it appears to me inconvenient and even dangerous that all these rates should be put into one common fund.
§ Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
§ MR. J. O'CONNOR
, who had on the Paper the following new clause—In any town where the Act of the ninth year of King George the Fourth, chapter 82, shall be in force then, from and after the commencement of this Act, the said Act of the ninth year of King George the Fourth shall no longer be in force therein, and the commissioners for the time being appointed under said Act shall be deemed to be the first commissioners appointed under the Act of the 17th and 18th years of Victoria, chapter 103, and said Act of the 17th and 18th years of Victoria, chapter 103, shall be deemed to have been adopted, and shall be in force in any such town"—said that as this proposal was embodied in section 31 of the Bill, it was unnecessary for him to move the clause.
Mr. T. M. HEALY
had on the Paper the following new clause—Where any ancient monuments or remains are being dilapidated, injured, or endangered, the county surveyor of any county shall report same to the county council, and if wilful injury has been done the county council may prosecute the same as if for a trespass to property in their own possession, and a conviction or injunction may be had and enforced accordingly, and in such case, or where injury results, or is threatened, from accident or decay, the council may authorise the county surveyor, with the consent of the owner or occupier, to repair same: Provided that the expenditure on repairs under this section in any year shall not exceed in any county the sum of two hundred pounds, and such expenditure shall be levied as a county at large charge. The report of the county surveyor shall be conclusive as to what are ancient monuments or remains within the meaning of this section.The honourable Member said he proposed to leave untouched the question of reparation or expense of repairs, and to move the clause down to the words "and a conviction or injunction may be had and enforced accordingly." This would leave it simply as a proposal that the county 268 council should have the right to prosecute for any wilful injury to ancient monuments, and he trusted the Government would consider that a very harmless proposal. Some very grave and glaring instances had occurred (he hardly liked, for the credit of the country, to particularise them) of ancient ruins and monuments being injured or defaced. At present no local authority had power to bring the law to bear upon the Goths and Vandals who acted in this way. He thought that the county surveyor, of some independent person, should have the power to step in and prosecute. These ancient monuments belong to us all; they are common property; they are part of the history of the land, and in the case of wilful injury being done to that property some public official should be empowered to prosecute. He admitted that great service had been done by the efforts of the right honourable Gentleman the Member for the University of London, and also by the Bill passed a few years ago, but something further was needed.
New clause proposed—
Where any ancient monuments or remains are being dilapidated, injured, or endangered, the county surveyor of any county shall report the same to the county council, and if wilful injury has been done, the county council may prosecute for same as if for a trespass to property in their own possession, and a conviction or injunction may be had and enforced accordingly."—(Mr. T. M. Healy.)
§ MR. GERALD BALFOUR
I have no objection in principle to this clause, but I am not certain that it will not require some amendment inform. I am not clear why power is required to obtain an injunction, and the clause does not state whether the prosecution is to be instituted under the Malicious Injuries Act, or some other Act. If the clause is read a second time, we will consider whether its form is sufficiently clear.
MR. T. M. HEALY
I am quite in the hands of the Government, but it appears to me that, in addition to prosecution for an act already committed, there should be power to obtain an injunction against continuing an injury in course of committal.
§ Clause read a second time and added to the Bill.269
New clause proposed—
From and after the passing of this Act there shall be added to the Local Government Board four members elected by the county councils of Ulster, Leinster, Munster, and Connaught, respectively, as hereafter provided, and the said elected members shall have the same powers and duties as the Commissioners appointed by Her Majesty."—(Mr. Dillon.)
§ MR. DILLON
By this Bill a very great and almost unprecedented change is to be effected in the system of Local Government in Ireland. The government of counties is to be transferred into the hands of councillors who shall be elected on a popular franchise, and who are to be entirely representative of the people; but these new bodies are to be brought into contact with, and controlled by, the Local Government Board, a body which, as has been pointed out in this House, is not under the same popular influence as the Local Government Board is in this country. It seems to me that one of the greatest problems the Government have to consider is how they will overcome the friction between the new popular bodies and the old Local Government Board. The Government Bill proposes to make this great alteration in the local governing bodies, but does not propose any substantial alteration in the Local Government Board. It is true the Government have a clause in the Bill by which they propose to add, I think, one member to the Local Government Board for the special purpose of bringing this Act into operation, but that member is to be nominated by the same machinery as that by which the present members of the Board are nominated, and is not to be in any way popularly elected. Now the proposal I venture to put forward is that there shall be added to the Board four members elected by the county councils of Ulster, Leinster, Munster, and Connaught. I have not put upon the Paper any clause providing the machinery for election because I thought I could easily do that when I found that the Government assented to the principle involved. Now what is the object of this proposed Amendment to the Bill, and how do I suppose that it would work for good? The object I have in view is this: that these elected members would bring the Local Government Board into direct touch with the wants and views of the local governing bodies. It would be per- 270 fectly competent for the Government to add one or two more members, if they held the view that the nominated members should be in a majority on the Board. I put it to the Chief Secretary that there are many questions which will inevitably arise under the working of these new Local Government institutions in Ireland, and that it would be of advantage if there were upon the Board itself men who were in touch with the local governing bodies and who could express their views and act as channels of communication between the local bodies and the central Board. It has been the great evil of Irish government, and I am sure that the right honourable Gentleman, and every Irish Secretary who has been over Ireland, must have felt it, that there has been no channel of communication between the central authority and the popularly elected local bodies of the country. That difficulty will be increased under the present system, because the popular bodies will be stronger and will have a wider sphere of action, and will be concerned with many more matters, and there may possibly be more friction between them and the Local Government Board than has taken place in the past. I think the proposal I have put forward is a very moderate one, and I hope it will receive from the Chief Secretary fair consideration. I think the success which has attended the operations of the Congested Districts Board, which, although not an elected body, is constituted on totally different lines from the ordinary local governing bodies in Ireland, is some ground for the proposal I make. There is one point in connection with the principle to which I ought, perhaps, to refer, and that is the question whether the four elected members I suggest should be salaried members. My idea is that they need not be salaried members, but that it should be within the power of the county councils to provide them with reasonable expenses while attending to these duties in Dublin to be calculated on the number of days they spend in Dublin. It would not be necessary for the elected members to attend so constantly as the other members, but in the event of any matter coming before the Local Government Board in which the county councils of a particular province are concerned the member representing that province should 271 be able to attend the Board and represent the views of his local bodies. I think this would considerably facilitate the work of the Local Government Board and would afford the means of overcoming some of the friction which may naturally be expected to rise in the course of the working of this Act.
§ MR. GERALD BALFOUR
It is true that we are making by this Bill what the honourable Member has described as a revolution in local government in Ireland. We are transferring to popularly elected bodies the duties of local government, and I do not hesitate to say that with such an experiment it would be extremely unwise if there was not a strong central body to control the action of these local bodies. Now the honourable Member proposes that four members should be added to the existing members of the Local Government Board, and that those members should be elected by the different county councils of the four provinces. The effect of that would be, first of all, to paralyse the action of the Local Government Board. There would be a very great risk of differences of opinion rising between the elected members and the nominated members of the Board, and the fact that they are appointed in different ways would be enough to set one section against another section. If you are to have a really powerful central controlling body, that body must have all the freedom of an ordinary Government Department. Complaint has been made in this House more than once that the Local Government Board in Ireland is not sufficiently responsible to Parliament. I have never taken that view. On the contrary, I hold that the Local Government Board is responsible to Parliament through the Chief Secretary. But if you have the elective element introduced into the Local Government Board it would be impossible to say that it was responsible to Parliament in the present sense.
§ MR. DILLON
I distinctly said that I should offer no objection to the Government amending the clause so as to provide that the nominated members should have a majority on the Board.
§ MR. GERALD BALFOUR
However that may be, one can conceive cases in which questions might be decided against the view of the Minister 272 who was at the head of the Department, and represented it in Parliament. It would be a complete innovation to apply the elective principle to a Government Department, and for these reasons I cannot accept the clause.
§ Clause put and negatived.
Page 18, to leave out clause 26, and insert the following clause—
There shall be transferred, subject to the provisions of this Act, to every urban district council the business and powers respectively of the guardians and of the grand jury respectively as regards making, levying, collecting and recovering the poor rate and grand jury rate within the districts of such council, and the like powers shall extend and apply to all other rates leviable by such councils within the said districts."—(Mr. Plunkett.)
§ MR. PLUNKETT
The object of this Amendment is to clear up a doubt that has arisen among the members of the Urban District Councils which I represent, as to exactly what their powers are in the collection of rates. The last words of sub-section 1 (b) of section 25 leave it uncertain whether the urban district councils have power to levy rates for the maintenance of certain public works, and section 26 only provides for the collection of the poor rates within the district. The Government are quite conversant with the difficulty which has arisen about the half rates in the case of hereditaments leased to the Government or to charitable institutions. In my constituency some of the councils have been able to assess the owners and levy their proper contributions, but in some districts that has been found impossible. The matter has been carried into the courts, and as a matter of fact the townships are not able to levy the rates on the proper persons. The municipal authorities are only able to levy from the occupiers, and in the case of these particular hereditaments, which are the only ones which will be affected by my Amendment, it is necessary to levy, not upon the occupier, but upon the owner, and that, so far, has not been found possible. All I want to do is to clear up any doubt in the matter. If the Government can satisfy me that the difficulty would not arise, I shall not press the Amendment. I believe they are as anxious as I am that the matter should be put right.
§ MR. ATKINSON
said that no practical difficulty of the nature sug- 273 gested could arise. The charge for the maintenance of roads would in future be levied by the county councils. The general rate would be looked after by the county, but the urban district council would have power to levy rates within its own area. Power was given under section 54 for the collection of the rates. As to the collection of rates upon charitable institutions, there was no doubt whatever; the owner was exactly in the same position as the occupier, so far as regarded liability for rates.
MR. T. M. HEALY
drew attention to the refusal of the Government to pay rates upon certain property in Kingstown, whereby the Government had in the last five or six years wrongly benefited to the extent of about a thousand pounds.
§ Clause put, and negatived.
The following provisions shall have effect in the case of petitions to the Local Government Board for a Provisional Order under section 203 of the Public Health (Ireland) Act, 1878—
§ MR. M. HEALY
This clause relates to the procedure for obtaining Provisional Orders. By the Public Health Act of 1878 it is necessary to insert advertisements in three newspapers for three weeks running. I propose that insertions for two weeks shall be sufficient. Then, by sub-section 2, I propose an amendment of the law, which is, I think, absolutely necessary. Under the Bill as it stands the Government propose to dispense with Parliamentary sanction in the majority of cases, but still they preserve a provision in the Act of 1878 that the advertisement shall be published in one particular month of the year, November. It is obvious that the advertisements in the month of November are only required because of the necessity of coming to Parliament, and that is the month in which Parliamentary advertisements are generally published; but when you have to go, not before Parliament, but before the Local Government Board, you will greatly cripple the county council if you enact that the advertisements must be inserted only in one month of the year. The clause I propose will greatly tend to simplify the procedure under the Bill, and by lessening expense will add to the usefulness of the Bill.
§ MR. ATKINSON
said that the main objection he had to this clause was that it would modify the procedure under the Public Health Act, and that was a large general matter that should not be dealt with in this way. It was certainly very desirable that it should be done, if at all possible, and the Government would see whether some modification could not be introduced.
§ MR. M. HEALY
I will not press the clause, but I trust the Government will take the whole matter into consideration.
§ Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
The guardians, with the consent of the Local Government Board, may make regulations for—(a) the conversion of workhouse hospitals into district hospitals; and (b) the transfer of the duties and powers of the guardians as regards such hospitals and the administrative control thereof to a committee of hospital governors appointed by the guardians, consisting wholly or partly of members of their own body; and (c) the payment and accommodation under which private patients may be admitted.
The guardians, acting through the said committee and subject to the regulations of
the Local Government Board, shall properly manage and maintain such district hospitals, and may appoint and remove officers and regulate expenditure, and may receive and apply for the benefit of such district hospitals any endowments or subscriptions given by private persons for such purposes.
Subject to the general control of the guardians in respect of all moneys provided out of rates, the acts of the committee shall not require confirmation by the guardians."—(Sir J. Colomb.)
§ SIR J. COLOMB
I need not detain the House at any length in explaining the general effect of this clause. The honourable Member for North Dublin had practically the same clause down on the Paper, but, as his was obligatory and mine was permissive, he very kindly gave way in order that the principle might be discussed upon this clause. I regard this as a matter of very great importance. In districts in Ireland in which the only hospital accommodation is the workhouse hospital the necessities of the workhouse poor are, of course, provided for, but no suitable provision is made for those who are not paupers and object to taking workhouse hospital relief. In such cases the medical officers find very great difficulty in properly treating the patients at their own homes and affording them proper nursing and attention. My proposal simply is to authorise the guardians, if they see fit, and with the permission of the Local Government Board, to constitute the workhouse hospital a district hospital. That would, at all events, get rid of a sentimental objection which is very strong. Then it authorises the guardians to work the hospital by a committee appointed by themselves, consisting of hospital governors who may or may not be guardians.
§ [The honourable Member was still speaking when, it being Twelve o'clock, the Debate stood adjourned.]