I beg to move the Motion which stands in my name, and, before doing so, perhaps I may be permitted to explain to the House, as clearly as I can, the reasons that prompt me to take that course. The Bill is promoted by the Caledonian Railway Company, and deals with a great number of objects, with which I do not propose to interfere, except so far as the Bill relates to the Central or Gordon Street Station of that Company at Glasgow, and the approaches thereto. So far as I am personally concerned, my object is to endeavour to defeat the proposal of the Company to widen the approaches to that station, by extending the width of the bridge that crosses Argyle Street. I may inform hon. Members, who are not acquainted with Glasgow, that Argyle Street is the principal street of that city, and that it stands in the same relation to Glasgow as the Strand does to London. The street itself is 80 feet wide, and it is at present crossed by a bridge belonging to the Caledonian Railway Company, who propose to extend the width of their bridge from 75 feet to 185 feet, so that, in effect, the street will be carried under a tunnel for a distance of 60 yards, the bridge itself being only 18 feet in height. Now I ask the House to consider what would be said if it were proposed to build a bridge over the Strand 60 yards long and only 18 feet high. No Company who proposed a scheme of that kind would be listened to for a moment. I have no doubt it will be urged against the Amendment I intend to move that the Committee were unanimous in accepting the proposal of the Railway Company; but I may point out that the Committee only heard one side of the case. If they had heard both sides I think we should have been in a better position to judge of the matter now. It may be said that the representatives of the Corporation of Glasgow heard the evidence, and if they allowed the case to go by default, they are to blame and must take the consequences. Now, with regard to that matter, I wish to say that the Corporation of Glasgow were engaged in negotiations with the Caledonian Railway Company up to the time the Bill was brought before the House, and finding that the time was short, and that they could not get evidence which would place their objections to the scheme with sufficient force before the Committee, they came to the conclusion that it would be better to oppose the Bill in some other way. Now the Corporation of Glasgow have an alternative proposal, by which they provide that a station should be erected on the south side of Argyle Street. Many hon. Members will be acquainted with the Vauxhall Station of the London and South-Western Railway, and they will be aware that there is no carriage way to the station, and that the level of the street is reached by a staircase running into the street. If the same thing were done in connection with the proposed station in Argyle Street the passengers would go by a covered way into the street, where they would be able to find tramways running North, East, and West. It has been alleged against the Motion I propose to make, by hon. Members who represent County constituencies in Lanarkshire, which include the districts round Glasgow, that this proposal is not in their interest, or in the interest of their constituents. I am free to admit that gentlemen who travel to and from Glasgow for business purposes, find it a convenience to have the Caledonian Station, and that it gives them a certain amount of accommodation; but I would ask the House to consider whether persons of that kind are the only people who are to be considered in the matter, and whether no attention is to be paid to the great mass of people who never leave Glasgow at all, but who, on the other hand, have to make use of this main thoroughfare to the station from morning to night throughout the year? For my part, I think it is the duty of the House to pay attention to the convenience of the people who live in Glasgow. In conclusion, I should like to suggest to hon. Members who may be in some doubt as to the view they ought to take of the matter, that my proposal is supported by the Corporation of Glasgow, and by the Members who represent that City in this House. I beg to move from line 3 of the Preamble, the omission of the words which empower the Company—

"To widen and extend certain of the lines of railway leading into their station in Glasgow called the Central or Gordon Street Station, which were authorized by the Caledonian Railway (Gordon Street Glasgow Station) Act, 1873 (hereinafter called 'the Act of 1873'), and by the Caledonian Railway (Gordon Street Station Connecting Lines Act, 1875 (hereinafter called 'the Act of 1875')."

Does the hon. Member propose to move the first Amendment on the Paper?

I understood that the Motion I have made would cover all the Amendments.

What is the particular Amendment the hon. Member proposes to move now?

I move the first, which relates to the Preamble of the Bill.

Amendment proposed, in the Preamble, page 1, line 3, to leave out from the word "empowered" to first word "to," in line 11.—( Mr. Baird. )

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."

I had the honour of serving as Chairman of the Committee to which the Bill was referred, and I am therefore anxious to say a few words in order to justify the conclusion to which the Committee arrived. The hon. Member (Mr. Baird) has explained that the only part of the Bill which is considered to be objectionable is that which deals with the proposal to increase the accommodation of the Central Station at Glasgow. That station was constructed at enormous cost some seven years ago, and since then the increase of traffic has been very great indeed. I think I may say that the increase has been something like 150 per cent. even in so short a time. Members of this House will be familiar with the enormous tourist traffic in and out of this station, and with the fact that suburban districts have been rapidly growing up around Glasgow, and that they have now become very important as residences for business men of the City, and the consequence is, that very severe demands indeed have been made upon the capacity of this station. The railway already crosses this important thoroughfare in Glasgow—namely, Argyle Street—by a bridge; but the simple fact is, that that bridge is now found to interfere with the capacity of the station, and the proposal of the promoters of the Bill is, that if this bridge were widened, the capacity of the station may be very considerably increased. Of course, it is perfectly obvious that in crossing a great thoroughfare like Argyle Street at all, it must inflict a certain amount of inconvenience upon the public, and the Corporation of Glasgow alleged as much in the Petition which they presented to the House, praying to be heard by counsel before the Committee. They were heard; their case was presented to the Committee by very able counsel. The witnesses for the promoters were heard upon this particular point. It is quite true that no direct alternative scheme was proposed or supported by the Corporation; but in spite of the protests of the promoters, and, I am afraid, a little contrary to the general usage of Committees, we rather encouraged the suggestion of a possible alternative, so that we might be able to form a judgment as to whether the scheme proposed by the promoters was justified as an undoubted public requirement. Learned counsel were permitted to cross-examine the witnesses as to the possibility of accommodating the suburban traffic by constructing a station on the other side of Argyle Street, which I have reason to believe is substantially the alternative scheme the Corporation of Glasgow are now prepared to support. I may say that not one tittle of evidence was given in support of the practicability of the scheme. On the contrary, every witness who presented himself before the Committee made it conclusive that such a station would be insufficient, and would not satisfy the requirements of the travelling public of Glasgow. It was further suggested that it might be possible to relieve the traffic of the Central Station by enlarging the accommodation at the Bridge Street Station, which hon. Members will remember is on the other side of the Clyde. But this was barred by a conclusion arrived at by a Committee of this House a short time ago, and any accommodation provided on the south side of the Clyde would not meet the general requirements of the public, who use on a large scale the Central Station. Indeed, it was obvious to the Committee that, as far as the evidence went, this was practically the only way of meeting the case. It is perfectly true that the scheme involved the widening of the bridge across Argyle Street. Upon that proposal a great deal of evidence was received, all of which went to show that it is impossible to deal with the matter in any other way, or to satisfy the demands of the Corporation of Glasgow. I think the House will feel that after a measure of this kind has been most carefully considered by the Committee to which it was referred, and bearing in mind that the opponents, in exercising their locus standi, were fully represented by counsel; that they had witnesses in the room, whom they did not think proper to call, and that not one word was said by any inhabitant of Glasgow, by any occupier in Argyle Street, or any other person directly interested in the matter, against the plan proposed by the Railway Company; the opposition at that stage was not justified by the allegations. The opponents of the Bill would have an opportunity of raising their opposition in "another place," I think it is rather unreasonable, and certainly unbusiness-like, to endeavour to throw out so important a measure as this upon the consideration of the Report of the Committee, when hon. Members cannot have the same opportunity of considering the merits of the scheme as fairly and as fully as they were considered by the Committee.

As one of the Representatives of Glasgow and knowing the district personally, as well as having been in attendance when the Committee sat upon the Bill, I would venture to make a few observations upon the matter. This is not a Bill in which private interests are concerned; it is a case in which the public interests of Glasgow are chiefly concerned. It will be found that the Corporation of Glasgow opposed it unanimously, and that in this House the Members for Glasgow were united in opposing it, not as a Party question, but as a purely local public matter. In regard to the enlargement of the Central Station at Glasgow, it must not for a moment be supposed that the Corporation of that city object to give increased facilities to the public in regard to that station. That is not the point which is involved. The Corporation of Glasgow are anxious to increase the accommodation, but the question is simply one of plan. According to the plan promoted by the Caledonian Railway Company, they propose to enlarge the station by bridging over a considerable portion of a public street. They are covering over Argyle Street, the principal street in Glasgow, to an extent of 110 feet additional to what it is covered at present, for the purpose of extending their station. What the Corporation of Glasgow say is this—"You can enlarge your station accommodation without encroaching upon this public street at all." They say that they have had plans prepared by skilled engineers and that the highest engineering authorities tell them that they can meet the present wants of the public without any additional encroachment upon Argyle Street. The contention of the Corporation of Glasgow is that the plans of the Company not only involve the present taking of 110 feet of that important public street, but that in regard to any future extensions the Company will be compelled to encroach stilt further upon that street. The real point in dispute is whether the Company can get the increased accommodation they require without encroaching on the public streets. The Corporation of Glasgow did not resist the application of the Company for increased station accommodation, but only the method by which the increased accommodation is to be afforded. The proposal made by the Caledonian Company is without a parallel. In no other instance has a public street of such importance as Argyle Street in Glasgow ever been taken possession of by a Railway Company to the extent asked for, and I am afraid that it may hereafter be made a precedent. Of course, it would be to the advantage of a Railway Company to appropriate a public street, and erect station accommodation upon it, because, in that case, they would pay no compensation, and it is therefore easy to understand why a Railway Company should prefer a plan which gives them this possession of a considerable portion of a public street. A plan of that character must always commend itself to a Railway Company if Parliament would allow it. What the Corporation say is that if the Caledonian Railway Station is to be extended it should be extended in the usual way. I lay it down as a matter of public policy, that if a Railway Company, in the case of a city like Glasgow, is going to make such an encroachment on a public thoroughfare, it was the duty of the Railway Company, before the Bill was deposited and the plan submitted to Parliament, to consult the Local Authorities. In this instance the Railway Company lodged their Bill and fixed their plans without giving the Corporation an opportunity of seeing whether a better scheme might not be devised. When the plans were lodged what did the Corporation find? They found nothing but a line of railway and the limits of deviation; not the method by which it was proposed to enlarge the station. Therefore, when the Railway Company say that in February they entered into communication with the Town Council of Glasgow, what they really did was to show the Corporation the limits of deviations; but I challenge them to show that they advanced their plan for giving station accommodation until the matter came before the House of Commons. It was only then, for the first time, that the Town Council became aware of the real nature of the scheme which Parliament was asked to sanction. What was the position of the Town Council at that time? We are told that the case was heard for two days. That is perfectly true; but notwithstanding that, the Corporation consulted eminent engineers. Those eminent engineers were naturally unprepared at a moment's notice to propose a counter scheme. They said—"We must have time to prepare and develop a plan." Then it is said that the Committee were unanimous in the decision they arrived at. Why were they unanimous? Simply because they had before them the scheme of the Railway Company, and no scheme promoted by the Corporation of Glasgow. It is very easy to say that the Committee were unanimous, and if hon. Members had been on the Committee no other course could have been taken. There was only one scheme before the Committee, promoted by one side, and no evidence given on the other side. It may be said that the Corporation of Glasgow were to blame for not giving evidence; but what I say is that they were unable at that stage to get the evidence they required. The Corporation did not feel themselves in a position to offer evidence; but even assuming that the Corporation was wrong in the course they took, surely the House of Commons was the proper place, and this was the proper time to show that the public interests were in danger. In the case of a private person, if he neglects his own interests in this House he has himself to blame; but he is always protected by the Rules of the House to the extent that de jure he can always obtain compensation for any injury done to him. But in the case of an injury to the public interest it is different. If a Railway Company interferes with a public street the public can get no compensation whatever, and consequently this House is the proper tribunal to apply to if it can be shown that there has been neglect, or that in any other way the public interests will ultimately suffer. I have said that the Corporation of Glasgow had no opportunity of submitting evidence when the case was before the Committee; but I may add that they have now prepared a scheme which shows that the increased station accommodation proposed by the Caledonian Railway Company can be carried out without encroaching in any way upon Argyle Street. A question has been raised as to the increased traffic, and surely that is a question upon which the Corporation of Glasgow have a right to be heard. No doubt, there is a growing suburban traffic; but does that justify the Railway Company in seeking to appropriate a public street for the accommodation of parties purposely and wilfully remaining outside the city bounds to escape city taxation? We may be told that the Corporation has the House of Lords to appeal to. That is perfectly true; but in a matter dealing with the interests of the public I submit that this House, which consists of the Representatives of the people, is the place where the views and interests of the people ought to be ventilated and protected. For these reasons I support the Amendment which has been moved by the hon. Member opposite.

I only rise for the purpose of expressing the views of the county portion of the community who have an interest in this question. I represent a very large and important Division of the County of Lanark, and I believe my constituents will thoroughly endorse every word I say. The whole case lies in a nutshell. In the first place, it is absolutely indispensable in the interests of all persons who have to enter or leave Glasgow that there should be free access, and that the station accommodation in connection with the Central Station of the Caledonian Railway should be vastly improved. In the next place, this measure will provide that improved access and improved accommodation in the Central Station; and, in the third place, although the Caledonian Company are prepared to expend a sum of more than £250,000, on these improvements, they do not propose to derive 1 d. of profit by an increase of rates and fares. It can hardly be imagined that the Railway Company propose to incur this heavy expenditure out of pure "cussedness." It is argued that they ought not to encroach further on an important public thoroughfare; but, as a matter of fact, they have no alternative. As the Chairman of the Committee has stated, suggestions for an alternative scheme were asked for by the Committee, and some suggestions were put forward; but they were not so ridiculous that they were naturally rejected. Not only have the Company agreed to spend this large sum of money in effecting much required improvements, but a Committee appointed by this House, after a thorough investigation, have unanimously accepted their scheme. I therefore give an unhesitating support to the Bill.

As I represent one of the Divisions of Lanarkshire, I wish to make a few remarks in support of the extension of this station, on the ground that it will be beneficial to the public interests and the public safety. The Railway Company have already been permitted to cross Argyle Street; in fact the railway has to approach the station by a bridge over that street, and there is no other way by which the station can be enlarged, except by the widening of the existing bridge over Argyle Street. It is therefore, for the interests of the public that the bridge should be widened, so as to secure the public from the danger of accident. The hon. Member for the Central Division of Glasgow (Mr. Baird) has told the House that it is for the interests of the people of Glasgow that this bridge should not be widened; but the people of that city are quite as impressed with the inadequate capacity of the Central Station as other people, and feel the desirability of widening it, in order that the accommodation of the public may be increased. I do not think it was at all necessary to introduce so fictitious an illustration as the case of the Strand; but if the hon. Gentleman wanted a parallel, he might have referred to the Thames Embankment, and the way in which Parliament has allowed it to be crossed by railway bridges and tunnelled underneath by railway lines. Parliament did so because it was found that the existing means for carrying on the passenger traffic of the Metropolis were not commensurate with the requirements of the public; and precisely the same want is experienced in regard to the Central Station of Glasgow. Other stations have been enlarged in London on the same principle, because it was found that no other means could be provided for accommodating the congested traffic. In this case it is absolutely necessary that this bridge should be widened, in order to secure the safety of the public. I have, therefore, great pleasure in supporting the finding of the Select Committee, and I think it would be unreasonable and unbusiness-like to reverse the decision at which they have arrived.

,: The hon. Member for the Central Division of Glasgow (Mr. Baird) compared Argyle Street with the Strand in London, but, as a matter of fact, the Strand represents only partly the importance of the position which Argyle Street occupies in Glasgow. There are two principal streets in London running east and west—the Strand and Oxford Street, but Glasgow has only one—Argyle Street—and it would, therefore, be fairer to say Argyle street is to Glasgow what a combination of the Strand and Oxford Street would be to London. The point at issue is whether the Corporation should not be allowed a fair opportunity of presenting their case, and of calling evidence with regard to the technical part of the Bill. As a matter of fact, the Corporation had no knowledge of the details of the scheme of the Caledonian Company until the Bill went into Committee on the 28th of April. On the 4th of February they obtained some information in regard to it; but they were not made acquainted with the full details until April. It was, therefore, impossible for them to prepare and lay before the Committee the evidence which ought to be taken, and their only course was to oppose the Bill so far as it dealt with enlarging the station in Gordon Street. All that we want is that this part of the Bill shall be held over until next year, so that the Corporation of Glasgow may have an adequate opportunity of considering the matter. To that part of the scheme which relates to the enlargement of the station there were negotiations going on after the 28th of April when the Bill went into Committee — even as late as the 17th of May — between the Corporation and the Caledonian Company. The Corporation have no desire to limit the amount of accommodation which the Railway Company desire to provide; but the Company insist upon taking a portion of a public thoroughfare which the Corporation think it necessary to preserve in the public interest. For these reasons, I shall support the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for the Central Division of Glasgow.

As Chairman of the Caledonian Railway Company, I desire to say a few words. Every hon. Member who has spoken has admitted the necessity of providing increased accommodation for the rapidly growing traffic; but not one of them has suggested an alternative to the scheme of the Bill. Complaint has been made that the Railway Company promoted this Bill without first taking into consultation the members of the Corporation of Glasgow. Now, in the month of November in last year, the Company, in the usual course, gave notice of this Bill, and in that notice they stated that they required to increase the width of the bridge by 200 feet. That notice, in fact, gave the Corporation all the information that the Corporation could possibly require. It was simply and solely a widening of the bridge that was proposed, and it is simply and solely to the widening of the bridge that the members of the Corporation of Glagow now object. On the 4th of February, they were put in possession of all the information respecting the plans of the Company, of which the Company were themselves in possession; and from the 4th of February until the 18th of April, when the Bill went into Committee, they had ample time to enable them to draw up an alternative scheme. They tell us that they did consult some of the most eminent engineers in the country; and they had also their own servants, who were fully competent to advise them. They might have called these engineers and servants before the Committee, but they thought it was better not to place these gentlemen in the witness-box. And why? Because the only alternative scheme these gentlemen could suggest for the relief of a congested station was to build another station where no passenger wanted to go. How could a scheme like that possibly relieve a congested station? The Corporation of Glasgow knew very well that it could not, and, therefore, they refrained from putting these gentlemen into the witness box. This scheme involved the erection of a station 25 feet above the level of the street, with no means of access for cabs or carts, except by constructing a long tunnel, which would involve the demolition of a large amount of property. Such a scheme, which could only be carried out at all by making the access to the station a zigzag incline of 1 in 15, was so absurd and unbusinesslike a proposal, that the Corporation dare not put witnesses into the box to suggest it. The Central Station was originally designed for the accommodation of a very large amount of traffic, but the Railway Company under-estimated the amount of traffic that would use it. Before it had been in use for more than a year it was found that there were 3,000,000 of people making use of it, in addition to contracts with an enormous number of ticket-holders. Five years afterwards the traffic had risen to close upon 5,000,000, and whenever a holiday occurs it is most inconveniently crowded. The Caledonian Company are most anxious to remain on good terms with the Corporation of Glasgow, and to work with them, as far as possible, in the interests of the community; but they are unable to see any means by which the inhabitants of the locality can obtain relief except by the plan which they have themselves proposed.

Question put, and agreed to.

An Amendment made.

Bill to be read the third time.

I beg to move—

"That it be an Instruction to the Committee on the Manchester Ship Canal Bill, that the Opponents to the Bill (namely, the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board, the Corporation of Liverpool, and the London and North Western Company) be heard only on the question of the effect upon the said Opponents of the alteration of the financial conditions imposed by 'The Manchester Ship Canal Act, 1885,' so far as the said Opponents were protected by the said conditions; and that the said Committee do hear any Shareholders dissenting from the Bill on their Petition against the Same."

,: I have no wish to oppose this Motion; but I do desire to have the terms of the Resolution distinctly expressed in the Motion moved by the Chairman of Ways and Means, so that it may be clearly understood that the powers which are conferred upon the Committee under the Motion are the same as those which we understood to be expressed by the hon. Gentleman in his speech of yesterday. The point to which I wish especially to draw attention is this—that, speaking on behalf of the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board, we know that when the Bill was passed it was granted in consequence of the evidence originally laid before the Committee—namely, that the measure was promoted in the interests of Lancashire; that the capital subscribed towards the scheme would be Lancashire capital; and that the measure was promoted solely because there is a desire on the part of Lancashire to have this Canal made. It would now seem that those conditions have been altogether changed, and that the people of Lancashire, having been asked to find the money for the scheme, have signally failed to do so. The original conditions, therefore, do not exist, and the scheme is now converted into one which is to be promoted by financiers—London financiers, because Lancashire has distinctly said—"No doubt we want this Canal; but we want it made by utilizing other people's money. We decline ourselves to find the £7,000,000 or £8,000,000 which it will cost." I have no desire to detain the House further; but I wish to give this short explanation of the part I have felt it my duty to take in the matter.

The words of the Instruction appear to me to carry out materially the understanding which was arrived at yesterday. My object in making the suggestion I did was to secure the brevity of the debate; but I have no idea that I said anything that was calculated to lead to the conclusion that any interest would not be protected which ought to be protected, so far as the duty would be imposed on the Committee of examining into the financial conditions of the question, and of paying full regard to all the interests concerned.

I take that as an affirmative of the remarks I have made, and, that being so, I shall not feel it necessary to raise any objection to the course which the hon. Gentleman proposes to take.

I do not rise for the purpose of objecting to the terms of Reference. As far as we are concerned, we understand it to be a Reference which will not practically defeat the object we desire to attain, and we are content to accept the terms in which it is proposed. I only rise now for the purpose of saying a word in the shape of a personal explanation in regard to an incident which occurred yesterday. I think it only fair to the agent for the promoters of the Bill that I should make this explanation. I find, on investigation, that he did not, as I said I believed yesterday he would not, give his consent to the Motion of the hon. Gentleman the Chairman of Ways and Means without authority. He admits that he did not receive any authority from me; but I find that he did receive authority from the Deputy Chairman of the Company to consent to the proposal in the interests of the promoters of the Bill. Having made that explanation, I will only add that I have no objection to urge against the proposal of the hon. Member.

Question put, and agreed to.

Ordered, That it be an Instruction to the Committee on the Manchester Ship Canal Bill, that the Opponents to the Bill (namely, the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board, the Corporation of Liverpool, and the London and North Western Railway Company) be heard only on the question of the effect upon the said Opponents of the alteration of the financial conditions imposed by "The Manchester Ship Canal Act, 1885," so far as the said Opponents were protected by the said conditions; and that the said Committee do hear any Shareholders dissenting from the Bill on their Petition against the same.—( The Chairman of Ways and Means. )

I have now to move—

"That it be an Instruction to the Committee to which the said Bill be referred, that the Committee shall report the Bill to this House not later than Friday 24th June."

My only desire in moving this Instruction is to secure that the whole of the proceedings in reference to this Manchester Ship Canal Bill should not be rendered utterly useless, and that the matter should not have to be gone into again. Although I have had no opportunity of consulting my constituents upon the matter, I believe that it is perfectly immaterial to know from what source the money is to come—whether from the people of Lancashire or from London. We have no sympathy either with the Mersey Board or with any Railway Company who are opposing the Bill; but our only desire is to see that the money shall be expended and the scheme carried out for the interests of those who are concerned in the commercial prosperity of Lancashire. I beg, therefore, to move this additional Instruction.

Motion made, and Question proposed,

"That it be an Instruction to the Committee to which the said Bill be referred, that the Committee shall report the Bill to this House not later than Friday 24th June."—( Sir Henry James. )

I confess that I am not in favour of the imposition of any unnecessary restriction upon the labours of the Committee, although I admit that there may be circumstances which may require such an interposition on the part of the House. At the same time, I think the circumstances ought to arise before we enter upon such a course as that suggested in the Motion of my right hon. and learned Friend. I think that, at any rate, the Committee should be afforded an opportunity of discharging its duties in a business-like fashion before we impose this condition upon them. If we should find that there is any disposition to waste time, or to delay the Bill in such a manner that the efflux of time may be likely to defeat it, then by all means impose this condition; but until such a disposition is manifested I think it would be improper to impose this condition upon the Committee. For my own part, I do not think we shall incur the danger which the right hon. and learned Gentleman has pointed out; but if it should arise, it will, undoubtedly, be the duty of the House to interfere by laying down some further Instruction to the Committee.

There is another reason why this proposal should not be accepted. I am told unofficially that it is not likely the Committee will be struck and be able to sit until the 23rd of June, and it is manifest that if they are required to report the Bill on the 24th they cannot have much time for consideration. Otherwise they would be unable to discharge their duties properly. All that is required is that we should appoint a strong Committee, and then leave them to perform their duties, which I have no doubt they will be able to do to the satisfaction of the House.

I should like to ask the Chairman of Ways and Means if there are any means of applying the closure to Private Business?

I would venture to make an appeal to my right hon. and learned Friend opposite not to persist with this Instruction in its present form. I think there is a good deal of force in the observation which has been made by my noble Friend the Member for Liverpool (Lord Claud Hamilton) as to the early date suggested for the Report by my right hon. and learned Friend — ["No!"] — I speak in perfect sympathy with the object the right hon. and learned Gentleman has in view, because I know the risk which will be incurred to the scheme itself if too much time is wasted in the proceedings before the Committee. I think that the inquiry which the House has ordered should be abbreviated as much as possible; but, at the same time, the period of two days which my right hon. and learned Friend desires to allow seems rather short. If there should be any unnecessary delay the right hon. and learned Gentleman might give Notice that, at the proper time, he would move that the Committee be directed to report the Bill. I quite agree with him that we must have an opportunity, at all risks, of getting on with the Business of the House.

I hope the House will allow me to persist with this Motion, for this reason—seeing that the whole of the capital has to be raised by the 6th of August, some limit of time is absolutely necessary. I will, however, accept the suggestion of my right hon. Friend the Chairman of the Committee of Selection (Sir John R. Mowbray) and alter the date in the Motion, with the permission of the House, from Friday, the 24th, until Monday, the 27th of June.

In that case, does the right hon. and learned Gentleman propose to withdraw the original Motion?

Yes.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Motion made, and Question proposed,

"That it be an Instruction to the Committee to which the said Bill be referred, that the Committee shall report the Bill to this House not later than Monday, 27th June."—( Sir Henry James. )

I am quite sure that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Bury has looked carefully into the time necessary for passing the Bill, and I believe there is a feeling in the House almost unanimously in favour of the Motion. ["No!"] Certainly it has remarkable support on both sides of the House; and, that being the feeling which prevails among hon. Members, I think there will be a general disposition to accept the Motion of my right hon. and learned Friend. We have to get the whole of the matter settled before the 6th of August, having to make a call of one-fifth of the capital, which must be paid in on or before the 5th of August. The House will, therefore, see how extremely perilous it may be to have any unnecessary delay.

I rise, with some regret, to oppose any Motion made by the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite; but it appears to me that it would be a very serious thing for the House to agree to this Resolution, in opposition to the advice of the Chairman of Ways and Means, which is invariably followed in reference to proposals as to the course of conducting the Private Business of the House. I also think it would be undesirable to act in opposition to the view expressed by the right hon. Baronet the Chairman of the Committee of Selection (Sir John R. Mowbray). I think the course suggested by the Chairman of Ways and Means is the wisest; and if it should appear, after this Bill has been in Committee for two or three days, that there is any prospect of unreasonable delay, or that the proper consideration of the measure was likely to be endangered, it will then be only right to move that an Instruction be given to the Committee to report a Bill on a given day. But to do that now would be, I think, to cast a reflection upon the discretion and authority of the Committee itself, and is not a course which I can recommend the House to adopt.

I rise with regret for the purpose of expressing my entire dissent from the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury. I think it of great importance that a date should now be fixed on which the Committee should report the Bill. The Chairman of Ways and Means has suggested, and the First Lord of the Treasury has endorsed the suggestion, that the Committee might be appointed without any limitation as to time, and that then, if it needlessly prolonged the inquiry, the House might interpose and call for a speedy Report. But the Chairman of Ways and Means overlooks the obvious consideration that, meanwhile, a great deal of very valuable time would have been wasted. Moreover, it would be a very difficult matter for the House to interpose after the Committee had began to sit, and to say it was not conducting its business properly. That would be equivalent to a Vote of Censure on the Committee, and could not be passed without long debate. The promoters of the Bill think it reasonable to ask that the Committee shall report in a few days' time, as the issue to be referred is a very simple one. An hon. Member who spoke early in the debate (Mr. Sinclair) talked about various questions going to be re-opened; but we say that there is only one question which affects in any way the opponents of this great, noble, and beneficent scheme. It has already been decided by Parliament that the scheme is of a bonâ fide character, and that the promoters shall have power to raise the money necessary to enable it to be carried out; but that, as a guarantee for the protection of the interests adverse to the undertaking, a portion of the capital must be actually raised by the 5th of August. Surely it does not signify to the opponents of the Bill where the money comes from, whether the people of Lancashire find it themselves, or borrow it from great capitalists in London. All that concerns them is that the sum named shall be forthcoming. In any other country in the world a scheme of this sort would be supported by the State with a guarantee.

I must point out to the hon. Member that he is not confining himself to the Question before the House, which is that the Committee be instructed to report the Bill to the House by a particular day.

Then I will only say, in conclusion, that the issue referred to the Committee is a very simple one — namely, whether the money is likely to be forthcoming or not; and it is desirable that that fact should be reported to the House at the earliest moment.

I wish to point out that the essence of the whole question is the time at which the Bill is to be reported. If the promoters are not allowed reasonable time, it will be impossible for them to go on with their scheme; and the powers which have been already conferred on them by Parliament will lapse. Representing, as I do, the interests of a considerable number of persons in Lancashire, I am most anxious that nothing should be done by this House to imperil the scheme.

I think it is a serious question that so much time should be spent on these Private Bills; and I must say that I have a very strong feeling in regard to this particular Bill, because I cannot forget that a long and protracted inquiry did take place on the Manchester Canal Bill three years ago, and that the investigation by a Select Committee cost the country the life of a very valuable public servant—the late Mr. Forster. I think it is right we should say to the Members of the Committee that they are only to sit for a short time. There is some difference between Friday and Monday; and I am sure that if we give an Instruction to the Committee to proceed with all possible despatch in dealing with the financial conditions of the scheme it will enable the Committee of Selection to secure a strong Committee. I think it is most undesirable to waste the time of the House in discussing Private Bill legislation; and if an arrangement is come to at once, we shall be enabled to devote a greater length of time to the discussion of the more important measure which is to follow.

I wish to say a few words in support of the Motion of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Bury (Sir Henry James) in the interests of my own constituents, because I believe that it is a matter which concerns the public interests, and that it is a grave public scandal that an important enterprise of this kind should have been subjected to such persistent opposition, and that its promoters should have been put to such enormous expense. I believe that the whole scheme will be jeopardized, and that the whole work will have to be done over again, unless some Instruction of this kind is given to the Committee. I, therefore, trust that the House will consent to give the Instruction in order that an enterprise which is not only of local, but of national importance, may be proceeded with.

I wish to say that the opponents of the scheme have no desire unduly to protract the labours of the Committee, and they have neither intention or desire to obstruct the action of the promoters. I sincerely hope that the proposal of the Chairman of Ways and Means will be adopted, and that the Committee will not be limited to any special time.

Question put.

The House divided: —Ayes 243; Noes 82: Majority 161.

Ordered, That it be an Instruction to the Committee to which the said Bill be referred, that the Committee shall report the Bill to this House not later than Monday 27th June.

said that, as this was a question of Privilege, he presumed the House would deal with it in accordance with the precedent referred to in the Report. He would put down the Report for consideration on Monday next.

Special Report to be taken into Consideration upon Monday next, and to be printed. [No. 175.]

said, it was intended to proceed on Monday with Supply (Civil Service Estimates) as the first Order, and after that to take the Coal Mines, &c. Regulation Bill. It had been understood for some time that the Speaker would be moved out of the Chair on that Bill as nearly as possible at 10 o'clock at night.

said, that last evening the First Lord of the Treasury promised to make a statement this evening of the Business to be taken next week for the convenience of Members who did not wish to be in London during the Jubilee celebrations. He also wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he would inform them what was the reason that, to the great astonishment of the Irish Members, the Irish Land Law Bill was set down for Report stage in the House of Lords on the 1st July; and also how, in view of the action of the other House, he proposed to fulfil his pledge to have the second reading of the Bill taken in the House of Commons before the Criminal Law Amendment (Ireland) Bill had left the House?

said, he was in the recollection of the House; but he thought the hon. Gentleman had slightly misrepresented the engagement he made. What he undertook was, that the Irish Land Law Bill should be down in this House before they had parted with the Criminal Law Amendment (Ireland) Bill; and that engagement he should certainly endeavour to observe. He was not responsible for the arrangements which were made in "another place." He regretted that the Bill had been postponed so long as the 1st July; but he had not the least doubt that it would be in this House before they had been able entirely to dispose of the Criminal Law Amendment (Ireland) Bill. With reference to next week, looking at the present state of Business, they would not be justified in postponing the Report of the Criminal Law Amendment (Ireland) Bill beyond Wednesday in that week. It was, therefore, the intention of the Government to take the Report on that day.

When will the Bill be reprinted? It is absolutely necessary to know for the purpose of putting down Amendments.

It will be reprinted, I think, on Monday.

I understand, if the Bill is reprinted on Monday, the Report will come on on Wednesday?

I will undertake that it will be reprinted by Monday.

All I ask the Government to do is to adopt the suggestion of The Standard this morning, and adjourn the Report stage of the Bill to Monday. I want to know why they cannot allow the week in which the Jubilee celebration is to take place to go over without spending some days on the Irish Coercion Act? All I can say is that if they cannot see their way to accept the proposition we propose we will move that Jubilee Day be devoted to the Irish Crimes Act.

said, he very much regretted that he had not been able to meet the views of the hon. Member. He was entirely in the hands of the House. Having asked the House to adopt practically urgency for the passing of this measure, it did not seem to him desirable that he should further postpone it. If the House desired to postpone it, that was a matter he could not contend with; but it was his duty to bring forward the measure for consideration as rapidly as circumstances would permit, and he thought the country would expect them to proceed.

Why not go on with the Bill on Jubilee Day?

Order, order!

asked, if the Lords considered that three weeks ought to intervene between the final Committee stage of the Irish Land Law Bill and the consideration of the Report, why should not the same rule prevail with regard to the Irish Crimes Bill? Surely they were entitled to more than one day, and that the Jubilee Day of Her Most Gracious Majesty. No Government had ever attempted anything like this before; and, what was more, they would not gain anything by it. ["Order!"] What the Irish Members desired was that they should have a clear week in order to prepare Amendments for the Report stage. As for Wednesday, he made the Government a present of it.

said, he had only one suggestion to make with regard to Public Business. If it would be consistent with the views of hon. Members that the Government should proceed with Supply on Wednesday, without being subject to Motions on going into Committee, he would substitute Supply on Wednesday and Thursday for the Criminal Law Amendment (Ireland) Bill. But, again, he must be in the hands of the House. He could not propose a measure of that kind unless it was agreeable to hon. Gentlemen generally. But the condition of Public Business rendered it imperative upon him to ask the House to proceed with Business from day to day.

suggested that if no Business was taken on Wednesday it would be very acceptable to the House, and hon. Gentlemen from Ireland would then have an opportunity of considering any Amendments they wished to put down; and if the Government would take Supply on Thursday that might furnish a solution of the difficulty.

Mr. Speaker, I have to inform the House that Her Majesty has been graciously pleased to signify Her desire that the House should be represented by Mr. Speaker at the Thanksgiving to be held in Westminster Abbey on Tuesday the 21st day of this instant June, in celebration of the Fiftieth year of Her Majesty's Reign. This intimation of Her Majesty's pleasure, I need scarcely say, is another proof of the gracious consideration Her Majesty always shows for the convenience of her faithful Commons. The effect of this Message is that the House is dispensed from going to the Abbey in its corporate capacity, and the Members can go to Westminster in the manner most convenient to themselves. I therefore move—

"That this House, in accordance with Her Majesty's Gracious intimation, doth authorise Mr. Speaker, as representing this House, to attend the Thanksgiving to be held in Westminster Abbey on Tuesday the 21st day of this instant June, and that the Members of the House be admitted to the Abbey by Tickets."

Motion made, and Question proposed,

"That this House, in accordance with Her Majesty's Gracious intimation, doth authorise Mr. Speaker, as representing this House, to attend the Thanksgiving to be held in Westminster Abbey on Tuesday the 21st day of this instant June, and that the Members of the House be admitted to the Abbey by Tickets."—( Mr. Secretary Matthews. )

May I be permitted, Mr. Speaker, to submit that if this Motion is carried it will displace the Criminal Law Amendment (Ireland) Bill, contrary to the order of the House that the Criminal Law Amendment (Ireland) Bill shall have precedence over all other Business of the House. The Rule, which was passed some time ago, says that the Coercion Bill must be the first Business. It was my duty to invite your attention to this Rule on a previous occasion, and you then stated, Sir, that the question which had been put down was not Government Business. Now, if this Motion is taken now it will displace the Motion giving the Government precedence for the Crimes Bill on Tuesday next, Tuesday being a private Member's day; the words of the Rule are that the Crimes Bill is to be the first Business on every day for which Government Business is put down. But if the Government are, in defiance of their own Rule, to put down other Business, it will become a dangerous precedent, seeing that it will become the first Business of the House, within the meaning of the Rule, by which the Government obtained precedence for the Criminal Law Amendment (Ireland) Bill. I have no objection, personally, to the Motion; and I strictly guard myself against saying anything on the subject. All I call attention to is the subsequent effect of this proceeding upon the Business of the House. I would ask you respectfully, Sir, to read the Rule giving precedence to the Crimes Bill; and I would then put it that it precludes the Government from taking anything but the Crimes Bill as the first Order.

There is no force in the point raised by the hon. and learned Gentleman. The Resolution giving precedence to the Criminal Law Amendment (Ireland) Bill was that that Bill should have precedence over all Orders of the Day and Notices of Motion, including the Rules of Procedure. The Motion now before the House is an exceptional Motion, made for the general convenience of the House, and so stands in a category by itself, and has no bearing on the Business of the House.

If it be not the Business of the House, what is it?

The hon. and learned Member will note the distinction between the Business of the House and the general convenience of the House on an exceptional occasion.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved, That this House, in accordance with Her Majesty's Gracious intimation, doth authorize Mr. Speaker, as representing this House, to attend the Thanksgiving to be held in Westminster Abbey on Tuesday the 21st day of this instant June, and that the Members of the House be admitted to the Abbey by Tickets.

I propose to move in line 2, as an Amendment, in page 5, after "satisfied," to insert the words "by a Report of a Judge of the High Court," the object being to provide that no Proclamation shall be issued by the Lord Lieutenant except upon the Report of a Judge of the High Court. I have a strong impression that the intention of this clause is simply to put down the National League, and not only that but to put down any and every association having a similar object. If the Committee have looked at the clause, as it stands, they will see that the power proposed to be conferred on the Lord Lieutenant is of a most sweeping character. Another object of the clause is to put down the Press in any district where the Lord Lieutenant may consider it desirable, and to suppress any combination whatever, whether known by a distinctive name or not. Now the combination dealt with under the clause may be the most innocent combination in the world; there may not, according to my reading of the clause, have been any criminality at all; but if the Government choose to think that a combination exists in any district the Lord Lieutenant, at his own discretion, will have authority to suppress any meeting in support of such combination and to suppress the combination itself. Anyone who takes part in any such association or combination, anyone who publishes the objects of the association, any man who contributes money to, or receives money for, or solicits money for the association may be brought up for an offence under this clause, and before two Resident Magistrates who will simply be creatures of Dublin Castle, and he may be sent to prison with six months' hard labour. Now, I venture to say that the Czar of Russia does not, at this moment, possess a greater power than that. What I desire to submit is that the power of prohibiting any combination which cannot be shown to be of a criminal character is a power which ought not to be entrusted to any human being, let alone the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland acting under the advice of the Executive of Dublin Castle. It is a power of a most sweeping and arbitrary character, and I venture to think that no Englishman, at any rate, will contest the assertion that no such power ought to be given to any human being. It is a power which, if attempted to be exercised in England, would not be endured for a single day. Rather than submit to it the English people would rise in insurrection against the Government who attempted to enforce it. Remembering how Englishmen have fought in bygone times for the liberties they now enjoy, I shall be greatly surprised if they are not ready now to declare that it is a provision which they would not, under any circumstances, impose on their own country. If such a power is to be entrusted to the Government it certainly ought not to be entrusted to a person who will be incapable of exercising an independent and unbiassed judgment. If it be entrusted to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland it will be entrusted to a political partizan, and a partizan of the grossest kind—to a man who is himself connected in the most ostentatious manner with the landlord class, a man who has been in conflict with his own tenantry, a man who before he became Lord Lieutenant of Ireland occupied the position of an Orange Representative, and who at the present moment is one of the chief officers of that society. This seems to me to be one of the most serious parts of the proposal. The Lord Lieutenant is a man who has the power of carrying out these clauses, and there can be very little doubt that he will exercise that power without the slightest regard to mercy. That is not the worst feature of the matter. I do not propose to revive the discussion which we had yesterday as to the constitution of the Privy Council, but I will remind the Committee that the Privy Council con- sists of certain Members drawn from three classes—namely, ex-Secretaries to the Lord Lieutenant—Gentlemen who never attend the meetings of the Privy Council, the Judges of the Irish Bench, and we have been told that they will not take part in any matters concerned with the administration of the Criminal Law; and, thirdly, political partizans who have been nominated Members of the Privy Council on account of their subserviency to their Party. These are gentlemen who belong to the very worst class of landlords in all Ireland, and, if not all, they are nearly all of them convicted rack-renters, and it will be seen from the evidence in the Blue Books that they are landlords whose rents have been reduced by 30 to 70 per cent, as in the case of the Marquess of Waterford, who challenged his tenants to go into the Land Court, and asked for an increase of 50 per cent on his rents, whereas the Land Court decided that the proper course to take was to reduce the rents by that precise figure—namely, 50 per cent. The working Members of the Privy Council will consist of objectionable men, such as Mr. Cogan, Mr. Bruen, and Mr. M'Murrough Kavanagh, who have been partizans of the landlord party for any number of years. These gentlemen are personally interested in carrying out the provisions of this Bill.

Order, order! I must point out to the hon. Member that yesterday he was interrupted when he attempted to discuss this very point on the Motion for striking out the words "by or with the advice of the Privy Council."

I will not pursue the argument further. I was only anxious to give an analysis of the constitution of the Privy Council. The Attorney General will, no doubt, tell us again about the proposed responsibility of the Executive in this matter, and inform the Committee what the nature of the responsibility will be under which the Lord Lieutenant will carry out this provision. I cannot understand what arguments can be advanced in favour of the notion that this alleged responsibility really exists. What I said yesterday, and what I adhere to, is that the supposed responsibility of the Lord Lieutenant is a perfect sham and a complete fiction. The Lord Lieutenant is responsible, no doubt, to this House, but practically he is irresponsible. In the first place, no opportunity will be afforded to the Irish Members for canvassing the acts of the Lord Lieutenant under the Bill; and if an opportunity were afforded, the result would be that, no matter how arbitrarily the Lord Lieutenant might have acted, there would be a Party vote in his favour. The Lord Lieutenant will be made responsible when the present Government is turned out of Office, but not till then. I hope the time is not far distant when that event will take place; but, until then, the responsibility of the Lord Lieutenant will be a pure sham and a fiction, and I believe that it is, in reality, not regarded in a serious light by the Government themselves. I will postpone any further observations I have to make in support of the Amendment until I have had an opportunity of hearing what the Attorney General may have to say against it. I simply invite the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to the fact that the power which is proposed to be conferred on the Lord Lieutenant is the most sweeping that was ever proposed to be conferred upon any Member of the most arbitrary Government. A power like this ought not to be entrusted to anyone, and in the case of the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland it is scarcely likely that such power would be exercised in an unbiassed manner. I will only express the hope that the discussion will be continued until we succeed in exacting from the Government something like a defence of the clause.

Amendment proposed, in page 5, line 2, after the word "satisfied" insert the words "by a report of a Judge of the High Court."—( Mr. Clancy. )

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

The Amendment moved by the hon. Member is the first of a long series of Amendments on the 6th clause of the Bill. The clause itself is an important one, and some of the Amendments also are important, and, of course, ought to be discussed fairly. Some Members think that the powers proposed to be given to the Lord Lieutenant are excessive, while others are of opinion that if such powers are conferred they ought to be subject to a greater control on the part of Parliament, but I do not think it would be expedient, even if it would be in order, to discuss those questions on the Amendment now before the Committee. The objection I have to the Amendment is this—if there is a Proclamation the responsibility of issuing it ought to rest upon the Executive itself, and I disapprove entirely of removing that responsibility from the authority to which it ought to attach, and placing it on a judicial functionary. As I have said before, if an Irish Judge were to present a report, it would be impossible for the Lord Lieutenant to avoid acting upon it. We say, therefore, that whatever advice the Lord Lieutenant may obtain in reference to the desirability of proclaiming a district it must ultimately rest with him, whether the Proclamation is issued or not, and he must act on his own responsibility, accompanied by a previous knowledge of the facts.

The Attorney General for Ireland says that the Amendment proposes an unconstitutional course; but the whole Bill is unconstitutional from beginning to end. The real point of the Amendment is this—at whose instigation are associations in Ireland to be put down, in the event of any action being taken for the suppression of political combinations and associations? Is the power to be entrusted to the Lord Lieutenant, or is it to be originated and approved of by some judicial person exercising an independent judgment in the matter? I can conceive that if Parliament refuses to interpose between the Lord Lieutenant and the Executive, some independent authority like an Irish Judge, the only alternative will be that the Lord Lieutenant will be required to put these powers into force, at the instance of local landlords, such as Lord Annaly, whose action in connection with the County of Longford I referred to yesterday. I regret that the Attorney General did not take notice of that case, or of those of other persons who, having had disputes with their tenants, have laid them at the door of the National League. What I fear is that we may have Lord Annaly, or his agent, whispering in the ear of the Lord Lieutenant that certain matters are cases for interference; that the Lord Lieutenant will believe the statements made to him; that he will view the matter with the eyes of the landlord or his agent, and the result will be that an association which may have done no illegal act, and which has been in existence for the public benefit, may be put down at the instigation of a partizan. I am apprehensive that the Government may, by means of a provision of this kind, be able to put down the National League, and if that should happen you will burn into the hearts of the Irish people a hatred of your rule far deeper than that which now exists; instead of endeavouring to remove and mitigate that hatred, you will be doing the best you can to inflame it. I look upon the Bill as a measure which is intended to aggravate whatever disorder and disturbance already exists in Ireland, and I greatly regret that the Government should exhibit so complete an indisposition to accept reasonable Amendments of this nature.

The whole of this Section 6 and all the powers given by Section 7 are based on the satisfaction of the Lord Lieutenant. I therefore wish to point out the nature of the powers which are to be put in force, and in regard to which he is to act upon his satisfaction. It would appear that the powers themselves are to be retrospective in their action, and the result may be that when a district has been proclaimed every association which the Lord Lieutenant chooses to pronounce to be an illegal association, ab initio, even if he had to go back to the time of Adam to find out when it was initiated, may be suppressed. I would ask the Committee to consider what would be the condition of an association which now exists, and which has been declared by the Courts of Law to be a perfectly legal association? Under this measure it may now be declared to be an illegal association, and the Lord Lieutenant, acting upon his own satisfaction, may set aside any legal decision already arrived at. Suppose an association has been established in connection with the letting of land, or for doing certain work. That association may be held to have been, ab initio, a criminal association at the will of a Lord Lieuenant, and every contract which may have been entered into will be declared to be illegal. The power of creating retrospectively a Criminal Law should certainly rest upon no individual but upon Parliament. I have always understood that it is the duty of this House to lay down that certain acts are legal and others illegal, and that the application of the law should rest with the Law Courts and the Judges. It seems to me that the Committee, if they consent to leave this power in the hands of the Lord Lieutenant, will do a most unreasonable thing. The doctrine laid down by Her Majesty's Government is the most monstrous and alarming I ever heard of. They desire to abandon all the fixed rules of criminal legislation; to refuse to define crime any longer; to refuse to allow it to be defined by a legal tribunal; but, on the contrary, to declare that hereafter the discretion of the Lord Lieutenant shall be sufficient for defining what criminal offences are.

I am afraid that the Government can only be regarded as consistent in their consistency. The Lord Lieutenant is to be satisfied that an association has been formed for the commission of crimes, or for carrying on operations for or by the commission of crimes, or for encouraging or aiding persons to commit crimes, or for prompting or exciting to acts of violence or intimidation, interfering with the administration of the law, or disturbing the maintenance of law and order. If the Government contemplate the putting down of crime merely, why should they object to send down a Judge to investigate the circumstance connected with the combinations and associations against which this clause appears to be aimed? If a Judge found that there were unlawful combinations and dangerous associations, he would so report to the Lord Lieutenant; such combinations and associations would be proclaimed and the powers of the Act would be put in force. But what the right hon. and learned Gentleman tells us affords convincing proof that what he has in his mind is not unlawful combinations, but certain political associations now existing in Ireland. I think that in the few remarks he made the right hon. and learned Gentleman thoroughly unmasked the object of the Bill. The Government are not aiming at crime, and when any Member of the Government in an unguarded moment chooses to make a declaration, it at once reveals the true character and intention of the Bill, which are not to grapple with crime at all, but to deal with certain protective associations in Ireland which have been instituted for the purpose of making it possible for people to live in Ireland.

I think the Committee are entitled to some information from the Government as to what is to be the precise nature of the satisfaction the Lord Lieutenant must have in order to enable him to take the initiative. The character of the typical Lord Lieutenant was well defined by Dr. Whateley, Archbishop of Dublin, more than 30 years ago. In 1852, Archbishop Whateley said that, having acted under 13 Viceregal Administrations, he had come to the conclusion that the days and nights of the Lord Lieutenant were occupied in jobbery, and in endeavouring to provide posts on the Resident Magistracy for ruined gamblers. He added that the Lord Lieutenant rarely, if ever, knew anything of the country until he was sent over to govern it. And how is the Lord Lieutenant to be satisfied under this clause? He is appointed by the Prerogative of the Crown; he knows nothing of the country to enable him to be satisfied; and he can only be satisfied by hearsay from those who give him advice, and who are the paid agents of the Executive Government. The administration of this Bill will be conducted on political considerations, and will not spring from a desire to prevent crime and outrage. The persons who will give the information which is to satisfy the Lord Lieutenant will be persons who depend for their living upon the continuance of the present system. Those who are to satisfy the Lord Lieutenant and the Chief Secretary are the permanent officials in Dublin Castle. The agents of Dublin Castle must satisfy the Attorney General, who is always a political partizan. The right hon. and learned Attorney General—who is generally ingenious—objects to a report from a Judge, for the strange reason that, as Head of the Executive, the Lord Lieutenant is responsible, and that a Judge would not be responsible. Now, under the principles of our Constitution, the Judges are directly responsible to the High Court of Parliament, and the Lord Lieutenant has never yet been made responsible to Parliament. The right hon. and learned Attorney General and the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary are quite satisfied with the conduct of the Lord Lieutenant; but does the right hon. and learned Attorney General remember how, when out of Office, he stigmatized Lord Spencer's Administration? I maintain that this is a measure which has been introduced to meet certain political exigencies. The 19th section defines the expression "Lord Lieutenant" to mean "the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, or other Chief Governor or Governors of Ireland for the time being." Therefore, the words "Lord Lieutenant" plainly means the Lords Justices; and are there not, in the absence of the Lord Lieutenant, always three Lords Justices, one of whom is the German Prince who acts as Commander-in-Chief, while the other two are Irish Judges? So that in Ireland an Irish Judge will be able to arrive at an opinion without an investigation, which if he were sitting as a Judge in his Court he would be unable to do. It is regarded as a matter of extreme importance to the public that men should be duly and fairly elected to represent the people in this House. But are we to be deprived of all the liberties we enjoy in Ireland simply because the Lord Lieutenant "is satisfied?" If there is to be such a power at all, why should it not be given to a person who would be responsible to Parliament? Lord Cowper, when Lord Lieutenant, expressed his deep regret at the position in which he found himself placed. He declared that he possessed no power at all, although he was nominally the Head of the Government, but that, in reality, it was the Chief Secretary who had all the power, from being a Member of the Cabinet. This clause is to take away the power hitherto enjoyed by the Chief Secretary; to remove all responsibility from the Judges, who, if the Amendment were carried, would be responsible to the Lord Lieutenant, and invest it in the Lord Lieutenant. But even the responsibility of the Lord Lieutenant is illusory, because he will be a mere puppet, and his satisfaction is to be expressed in order to shield those who are pulling the strings behind him.

I will only detain the Committee for a moment. The right hon. and learned Attorney General has supported the retention of the words "if the Lord Lieutenant is satisfied," on the ground that the clause will not give any retrospective power, and that it will create no new crime. But, adopting their own argument, I am entitled to say that Section 6, if it is to be defended at all, must be defended on the ground that it delegates power to the Lord Lieutenant, if he "is satisfied," to declare that an association has "been formed for the commission of crimes;" and Section 7, which is merely a punitive one, gives power to the Lord Lieutenant to prohibit and punish all such dangerous associations, the limitation being that an order must be made before the association is to be punishable. It, therefore, appears to me that the Bill does give to the Lord Lieutenant a retrospective power, and, in my opinion, that is an additional reason for accepting the Amendment, which would deprive him of the power of enforcing this section upon what his termed his "satisfaction."

Question put, and negatived.

I beg to move the Amendment which stands in my name—namely, in line 6, to leave out the words "encouraging or." I propose to make some observations on the Amendment, after I have heard what the Government have to say upon it.

Amendment proposed, in page 5, line 6, leave out "encouraging or."—( Mr. Chance. )

Question proposed, "That the words 'encouraging or' stand part of the Clause."

As the Government do not propose to defend their clause by argument, but simply to bring their men from the Smoking Room to vote against the Amendment, I wish to say that I object to these words "encouraging or," because I never yet heard those words used as a legal phrase, and because they are not to be found in any legal definition of any known crime. I do not see why the Government have not adhered to the well known term, "aiding and abetting," or why, in this Bill, they should go for their phraseology to some non-legal source. An association formed for encouraging persons to commit crime is an extraordinary collocation. I see no reason for adopting these words, and I trust the Committee will not come to a Division until they have heard some shadow of a reason for the adoption of them. The words may have been taken from some old Act of Parliament, but, if so, it is an Act altogether unknown to lawyers.

They are used in other Acts of Parliament.

I would ask the hon. and learned Gentleman not to misapprehend my observations? I said distinctly that they may be found in some odd Act of Parliament; but they are not the more valuable on that account.

The words to which the hon. Member objects are taken from the 34th section of the Crimes Act of 1882. The word "encouraging" is very well known to lawyers. [Mr. CHANCE: No, no.] I repeat that the word "encouraging" is well known to lawyers, and it appears to me that "promoting or inciting to Acts of violence" and "encouraging or aiding persons to commit crimes" are convenient words.

So indefensible is the word "encouraging" in this connection, that in a previous part of the Bill the Government declared their willingness to strike it out. The word "encourage" in the last sub-section of Clause 2 was objected to by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Henry H. Fowler), who put down an Amendment to omit it, when a Member of the Government got up and said he was prepared to accept that Amendment. Ultimately the Government left out the whole of the sub-section, and consequently there was no opportunity afforded for getting an expression of opinion from the Committee. The fact, however, remains that the Government omitted this very word "encourage" from the 2nd clause of the Bill. The word is altogether unknown in legal terminology. I venture to assert that an indictment for "encouraging" instead of "aiding and abetting" to commit crime would get a very short shrift. The Solicitor General tells us that the expression is exceedingly convenient. I have no doubt that it will be convenient to use this exceedingly singular form of expression—that every power put into the hands of the Lord Lieutenant will be a convenient power, and that the more atrocious it is the more convenient it will be. It will be most convenient that persons who are prosecuting associations and combinations should be able to couch their views as to such associations in vague language. The hon. and learned Gentleman has mentioned one instance in which the word has been used—the Crimes Act—but I challenge him to justify it by showing that it is a familiar phrase in legal documents or in Acts of Parliament. I deny that it is, and I am prepared to take issue upon the matter. He has only referred to one instance—the Crimes Act of 1882—which is the usual resource of the Government whenever they want any argument whatever. I decline to accept the Crimes Act as a precedent in the matter, and I tell the hon. and learned Gentleman that no section similar to this is to be found in the Crimes Act. The words "illegal associations" in the Crimes Act had some meaning, and I ask the Government what it is they wish to strike at in this Bill. Why do they not content themselves with legal terms already existing and well known? If they want to strike at illegal associations or the aiding and abetting of crime, let them do so, but not by adopting the term "encourage," which will enable the Irish Executive to suppress any association which they may make up their minds ought to be put down. The Government now attempt to defend this word "encourage" by saying that it is taken from the Crimes Act; but they made no attempt to do so when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Wolverhampton moved to omit it from the 5th sub-section of Clause 2.

The same old argument is again used—namely, that the word is in the Crimes Act, but in all indictments in regard to the commission of crime which I am acquainted with, the words are "counselling, aiding or abetting." Those words are well understood, but I have not the faintest idea what "encouraging" crime is. I should like the hon. and learned Solicitor General to give the Committee a definition of the term; it is not aiding or abetting, and it is a word unknown to the Criminal Law of the country. Crime under this Bill is not to mean crime in the ordinary sense of the word, and although I do not think it will make much difference whether it is in the Bill or not I feel bound to enter my protest against its introduction. About four years ago a boy 9 years old was arrested for whistling "Harvey Duff" an air which is not acceptable to policemen. Would that be held under this clause to be encouraging to the commission of crime? or would another boy by laughing at the whistling of that or a similar air, be held to be "encouraging" crime, and be liable to punishment?

I do not believe the omission of this word would make the slightest difference, as the Lord Lieutenant woud do whatever the Cabinet directed him and would ride roughshod over the people. But as the words known to the law are, "promoting, inciting, aiding or abetting." I think that it is important the Committee should divide upon the Amendment, and I hope the Division will be taken at once.

I do not pretend to possess any legal knowledge, but I think the Committee will bear me out when I say that the persons who framed the old laws of the country were quite as competent lawyers as those who are now engaged in framing new ones. In olden times our legislators sought to put into Acts of Parliament words which had some meaning and which were as expressive as it was possible to make them. I do not object to the word "inciting," because everyone knows what it means; but I think that "encouraging" is much too noble a word to use, seeing that a man is encouraged for some good and noble purpose, and that the word should not be employed when it is to deal with incitement to crime. Those who cheer or laugh, and are thus thought to give moral encouragement to any person resisting the authorities, will be brought within this word of the clause, of which the most indiscriminate use can be made.

I think the hon. and learned Solicitor General for Ireland (Mr. Gibson) is perfectly right in opposing the Amendment of my hon. Friend. The object of the Bill is to give absolute and arbitrary power to the Government of Ireland, and of course the Government are not so silly as to tie themselves down to legal words, and it is therefore unreasonable to expect that they will strike this word out of the clause.

I agree with the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken, that there is no chance of inducing the Government to withdraw this word. I think, however, it was desirable that the Irish Members should point out the scope and meaning of the word, so that there should be no misunderstanding about it. Henceforward everything in Ireland will be a crime that any Resident Magistrate chooses to call a crime, and the word "encourage" will give them still wider facilities for bringing the whole of the Irish people under the purview of the provisions of this Bill, the inherent atrocity of which will cause it with certainty to break down. Nor will the Government attempt to carry out the powers of the Bill to the fullest extent. They will go to work like sneaks and cowards, bringing the Act into operation in some cases and not daring to enforce it in others. They will arrest certain young men in remote parts of Ireland who are obnoxious to the local landlords, and are leaders of a local association, while they will not dare to punish others. It is an infamous measure which is certain to break down by reason of its own atrocity.

Question put.

The Committee divided: —Ayes 137; Noes 106: Majority 31.—(Div. List, No. 235.) [7.45 P.M.]

On rising to move as an Amendment the omission, in page 5, line 7, from the word "promoting" to the word "order," in line 9, both inclusive, said—Sub-section (d) runs thus. "Promoting or inciting the acts of violence and intimidation." I wish to point out that the words of Section 2 of this Bill are "Any person who shall wrongfully and without legal authority use violence," whereas here the words "wrongfully and without legal authority" are dropped, which has the effect of making the action of any society amenable to the clause, whether criminal or not. Now it seems to me that if the words of the clause are to remain as they are, even a football club would be a society within the meaning of the Act; and the same might be said with regard to the College of Surgeons. I think, that having re- gard to the fact that the Government have spent several months in hatching the Bill, they might have framed it in the terms of common sense. The reason why I propose to omit these sub-sections is, that you have already covered the commission of crime and the aiding and abetting of crime, and that, therefore, these words are unnecessary, and can have no meaning or use except in the case of something distinct from crime. If you disturb the maintenance of law and order, that is a crime, and again, that falls under Sub-sections (a), (b), and (c). We are therefore forced to the conclusion that those sub-sections are aimed at some other object than crime, and, therefore, I ask the Government to accept the Amendment which I beg to move.

Amendment proposed, in page 5, line 7, to leave out from the word "promoting," to the word "order," in line 9, both inclusive.—( Mr. Chance. )

Question proposed, "That the words 'promoting or inciting to' stand part of the Clause."

In the opinion of the Government, what is provided against here is not dealt with by previous clauses of the Bill; nor do I think with regard to Sub-section (d), which the hon. Gentleman says is already included in (c), that the hon. Gentleman has made out his case. Again, if he were right in his view, the result would be that the words would be superfluous, and that being so they could do no one any harm. That, however, is not my contention; it is that, having regard to the description of associations with which we are dealing, the Government consider it desirable that the wording should remain in its present form so that the public should be able to understand the scope of the clause, and for that reason we are unable to accept the Amendment of the hon. Member.

, &c.): This clause enables a special Proclamation to be issued by the Lord Lieutenant if he is satisfied that an association exists in any part of Ireland having some of the objects in view which are specified in the clause. Supposing the Lord Lieutenant were to take it into his head to proclaim the Orange Asso- ciation in Ulster on the ground that it had promoted acts of violence; he might proceed forthwith to order that the National League should be suppressed in Kerry, and thenceforward every one belonging to the League would be guilty of an offence under the Act. I believe the Lord Lieutenant might go further than this if he liked, and suppress the British and Foreign Bible Society under this section, or other similar societies. Of course I do not believe he would do that; my point is to show that the Lord Lieutenant is here given despotic powers. I cannot think that any Oriental despot has greater powers than are given here; and, therefore, I say there should be some very strong occasion on which the Lord Lieutenant should be at liberty to bring into operation the power of this section. If there were in existence a society for the perpetration of crime there is very little that I would not agree to for the purpose of suppressing it; again, if there were a society for the purpose of encouraging or aiding persons to commit crime, in that case also I can understand that the House should give ample means to the Lord Lieutenant for calling these powers into operation. But Sub-section (d) speaks of promoting or inciting to acts of intimidation. Now, I do not agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland that this is not covered by the preceding head. I think it is. But I also agree with my hon. and learned Friend that, if it is not covered, it is because the clause has reference to acts which are not criminal. It comes to this, that from the mere existence of associations not for criminal purposes there shall spring occasion for bringing these tremendous powers into force. But it is still more objectionable that the clause should enable the Lord Lieutenant to apply those powers in the case of interference with the administration of law or the maintenance of law and order? I ask if there are two score of men in this House who agree in what constitutes the interfering with the maintenance of law and order. Suppose we carry ourselves back to the Reform Bill of 1832, there was, at that time, great agitation for the purpose of obtaining extension of the franchise. It is notorious that that agitation was considered as most dangerous, and tending to disturb the maintenance of law and order, and yet no one now dreams of saying that it was not a beneficial agitation, and no one can say that it would not have been wrong to suppress it. The same may be said with regard to the Anti-Corn-Law League, which was denounced as a league disturbing the maintenance of law and order. The Committee should remember that this Bill is intended to be permanent and not restricted to a few years existence. That being so, is it not dangerous to admit such language as this? Suppose that hereafter this Bill comes to be used by a Government which has a very strong opinion with reference to the Orange Society. I can quite understand that it might be considered, very reasonably, especially by a Nationalist Government, that the Orange Society was a society for disturbing the maintenance of law and order. That would be sufficient to enable these powers to be exercised. The whole objection I have is this—so severe, so extensive, and I must say so tyrannical are the provisions contained under Section 7 of this Act that it seems to me essential that you should have a very strong occasion in the mind of the Lord Lieutenant before he is at liberty in any way to bring such a power into play, and if the Lord Lieutenant cannot be satisfied with Heads (a), (b), and (c), or even (d), surely you ought not to use such vague and dangerous language as is put down in the last sub-section.

I am afraid that in giving these great powers to the Lord Lieutenant it is generally presumed that he is naturally a very excellent man, and will use them in the most careful manner, and that instead of abusing he will hardly act up to the extent of his powers. That is the general tone of Her Majesty's Government. Now, that tone has been very well adopted by the hon. and learned Solicitor General for Ireland (Mr. Gibson), contrary, I think, to his natural disposition, which is to argue every matter fully and fairly. But, I ask the Committee, is it proper to suppose that we shall always have this sort of action on the part of the Lord Lieutenant? I know a right hon. Gentleman—a man of great ability—who, at the beginning of the Session, asked for the power of the closure to be used in the mildest manner, and yet that right hon. Gentleman went last week to the extent of moving that this Bill be reported next Friday with the intention that any questions remaining over at that date should be voted upon in silence. Now, I expect that the Lord Lieutenant in Ireland will act in a manner exactly similar—he will follow the example of the right hon. Gentleman to whom I am alluding. The Lord Lieutenant may wish generally to do what is right, but when he is pushed hard in times of excitement he will be disposed to strain his powers. It is for that reason, I say, that we ought to give him not maximum but minimum powers, and such that, if he is a good man, they will do no harm, and if he is a bad man, will do harm to the least possible extent. At the present time Ireland is in an extremely quiet state, and is likely to remain so. I think we are giving powers to the Lord Lieutenant to break up political associations, unless he is restrained by his conscience. I do not, however, expect much from the conscience of the Lord Lieutenant—I do not say that he has not got one, but that we must not hope much from it when he is putting this Act in force. I remember the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. W. E. Gladstone) saying that English Parties were not in the habit of pushing each other very hard, and I believe that that is very true. They do not try to put the Opposition into prison, they only abuse them. But that does not apply to Irish Parties, nor does it apply to Englishmen who come into power in Ireland. When Englishmen come into power in Ireland, I am sorry to say that the rule of not pushing Parties very hard is not applied, and I should be always afraid that if you give one Party too much power they will push their opponents too hard. I say that this clause does give them too much power; I say it gives them power to punish any individual, any district, and any political association whatsoever in Ireland that may be opposed to the great Conservative Party. I do not know any Party that may not be accused of, at some time or other, inciting or promoting acts of violence or intimidation. I admit that it is a proper thing to bring before a Judge and punish a person who has committed acts of violence. If you can prove that a society has committed acts of violence or intimidation, then I think it is perfectly fair to punish the members of the society by whom those acts are committed, and I think that the chairman who counselled or took part in them might be liable. But that is not the meaning of this clause, which is simply to allow the Lord Lieutenant to suppress any societies he may choose in Ireland—the Home Rule League for instance. I am a member of the Home Rule League, and that League might have been put down 20 times under this clause, although it has never at any time committed an act of violence or intimidation; you could have put down such combinations with the greatest ease, and by means of this clause you could have checked a very important political movement. Now, when you see that the Lord Lieutenant could have used the clause to put down such a harmless association, do you not think it is dangerous to give him such extensive powers. There may be other similar associations spring up in Ireland. Supposing there was a Conservative Association in the North of Ireland, and that a right hon. Gentleman from the Conservative Government in England went to Ireland and told them to wave their banners and charge with all their chivalry, might not a Liberal Lord Lieutenant think that was an incitement to violence and intimidation, and put the association down? Waving of banners might only have a poetical meaning, but a Liberal Lord Lieutenant might think otherwise, and suppress the association. That, I admit, is not a thing likely to happen; but I say we shall feel it to be equally hard if one of our speakers should burst into an exhortation, not quite so refined, perhaps, as the allusion to banners and chivalry, and the Lord Lieutenant should exercise the power of suppressing this political association to which the individual belongs. You are giving this very dangerous power to the Lord Lieutenant, and I am afraid that some future Lord Lieutenant will exercise it in the way I have described. I ask you to give fair play to political associations in Ireland, because you are by this Bill destroying the right of association, without which it is impossible for our political Parties to exist. For these reasons, I do not think it right to give these extreme powers to the Lord Lieutenant.

I am sorry that the Government do not appear to attach any importance to this Amendment, especially after the definition given by the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury (Mr. W. H. Smith) as to matters of principle. I cannot conceive anything involving a more important principle than this Amendment. This clause gives power to the Lord Lieutenant to make a proclamation of societies. But do Her Majesty's Government thoroughly understand what is meant by a Proclamation? It means that instead of this House making the law as has always been the case, it is left to the Lord Lieutenant to say that certain associations are criminal, which is putting in the hands of the Lord Lieutenant the power of creating a criminal offence. I am sure that the Government will see that this has always been a great question in this country; it was carried on in the time of the Tudors and the Stuarts, who always claimed for themselves the power of creating crimes and offences by Proclamation. It is this which Parliament has always interfered to prevent; and I say we are now re-enacting some of the worst measures of the Middle Ages. We are giving to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland the very power which this country has always condemned. I think that what I have pointed out carries us to this length, that you ought to limit a power of this kind to the utmost. I do not know to whose ingenious imagination we are indebted for these words; but I am sure that their selection must have involved a great deal of study. The Scotch Law Officers are not here at the moment; but I am certain that no precedent for the words can be found in the Scotch law. I wish to point out that nothing can be more vague or more wide than the language of this sub-section—"Interfering with the administration of the law or disturbing the maintenance of law and order." I will take as an illustration a case of interference with the administration of law in Scotland. I refer to the agitation which took place among the crofters in the Northern counties of Scotland against excessive rents.

The hon. and learned Gentleman is debating this Amendment in a very general way. There is a special Amendment proposed to these particular words upon the Paper, and it would be more convenient to take the discussion upon them hereafter.

I have to express regret if I am going beyond the Question; but my wish is to illustrate the meaning of the words "interfering with the administration of the law," which is within the Amendment before the House.

That is quite true, but I have pointed out that there is a special Amendment on the Paper referring to these words exclusively, and that it would be more convenient to take the discussion upon them later on.

I shall not trespass at great length on the time of the Committee. What I have to say is contained in a very few words, which I think will appeal to the intelligence of most people, certainly of those in the North of Scotland, because the association I have referred to would come within this clause as an association interfering with the administration of the law. We have heard that rents in Ireland have been cut down under the Land Bill by 30, 40, and 50 per cent, and I tell the Committee that it is because Her Majesty's Government have refused to extend the law to Scotland that I propose to get up an association to bring about that result. We shall no doubt be told to-morrow by the organs of the Government that a great deal of time has been wasted to-night in the discussion of matters in which no principle is involved. But it has been clearly put before the Government what are the objections to the words of the clause. It is a wearying process, I must say, to urge anything upon the Government with the object of amending this Bill; it is like the waves beating against the granite rock. There is no response from the Government; there is no attempt whatever on the part of the Treasury Bench to meet these difficulties or to give way on any question of this kind, nevertheless, I hope that one of the Law Officers of the Crown will get up and make some concession in this matter. Is it intended to make it criminal to belong to the National League? If that is so, I do not think it is understood by the country, although it is clearly the effect of these words. It has been truly said that there is no political association in the country, if you come to the legal definition of it, which would not come within the wording of the section. The hon. and learned Solicitor General for Ireland says "No!" But he belongs to an association, and I am sure that as a member of it he has uttered words which would come within the meaning of this clause—language strongly condemning the law and strongly condemning the acts of the Liberal Party when in power, of course not inciting to violence. No doubt the hon. and learned Gentleman has indulged in general expressions of contempt and abuse of the legislation of his opponents. That, I think, will come within the meaning of this clause, and I say that to have the Government proposing such legislation, and leaving it to be carried out by a partizan official such as the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland must be, is a matter of grave danger.