said he wanted some explanation of this motion. He had read the Bill through carefully, and could find in it nothing safeguarding passengers and merchandise against an increase of rates, and nothing as to the provision of increased facilities. It was proved by the course of the last debate on that Bill that, as regarded a certain portion of the line intended to be annexed by the Belfast and Northern Counties Company, the facilities granted to the public were of the most meagre description. The course of railway legislation in this House was most extraordinary. Hon. Members were expected to agree to everything put forward by railway promoters, and it was deemed to be an abuse of the time of the House to ask for explanations as regarded the schemes of monopolist companies who practically controlled the trade and commerce of the Kingdom. He would refer to some of the provisions of the Bill—

^* : Order, order! The hon. Member cannot go into the merits of the Bill.

But surely I can go into the merits of the proposal to suspend the Standing Orders. Why is it proposed?

^* : The hon. Member has already asked that.

I wish to ask, are there any clauses in the Bill safeguarding the rights of the public, and I propose to read it.

^* : I have said that that would not be in order.

As a point of order. Is not the proposal a double one, to suspend the Standing Orders and to read the Bill a third time? Cannot the hon. Member discuss both branches, and is he not entitled to comment on the merits of the Bill on the latter part of the proposal?

^* : The question is not now that the Bill be read a third time.

But it is a joint motion.

^* : If there is any intention to discuss the merits of the Bill it can be done afterwards

I submit that it is an abuse to put both proposals jointly.

said the object of the proposal was to enable the Bill to go at once to the other House to be dealt with. It was not the fault of the promoters that it had come on so late in the session. The motion was a very usual one.

said there were very suspicious circumstances in connection with this case, and he could not blame his hon. friend for his action. It was remarkable that the Secretary to the Treasury, who was really responsible for the Bill, was not in attendance. When his predecessor in office, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Preston, held the post, he gave a distinct pledge to the House in regard to this Bill, and he always carefully considered the representations made to him.

^* : Do I understand that the hon. Member is opposing the motion?

Yes, Sir.

^* : Then it must go over till to-morrow.

Will it be possible to divide the motion into two parts tomorrow, and to separate the proposal for the suspension of Standing Orders from that for the Third Reading?

replied that he must follow the rules of the House in that matter.

It is a trap.

Bill to be read the third time tomorrow.

Belfast Harbour Bill [Lords]. (By Order.)

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."

said, in accordance with the notice which stood in his name upon the Paper, he begged to move the rejection of the Bill. As he understood the Bill, it was a measure the object of which was to substitute for a dock a new dock which it was intended to build, and to legalise certain agreements that had been entered into between the Harbour Board and Workman and Clark and Harland and Wolff, the two great shipbuilding firms of Belfast. His objection to the Bill was not based on any matter of detail, but upon the consideration that it was both unwise and unjust on the part of the House of Commons to confer additional powers upon the harbour board of Belfast, having regard to the constitution of that body, and he for one should refuse to confer those powers on them. Not only did the Bill propose to give the harbour board certain additional extensive powers with reference to the construction of docks, but also powers to enter into new leases between themselves and these two great shipbuilding yards, and, having regard to the circumstances connected with the control of those yards and the maintenance of law and order in them, he declined to sanction the proposals in the Bill. By the Belfast Harbour Act of 1883 the constitution of the board was settled, and he desired to call the attention of the House to the fact that the constitution of that board was most extraordinary. In the case of other ports of Ireland, as in the case of Cork harbour, the harbour commissioners were elected by the corporation, and the corporation was elected by a popular franchise of the people; but in the case of the Belfast Harbour Board nothing of the kind existed. It was provided by the Act of 1883 that there should be a high property qualification for every commissioner and every member of the harbour board; that he should either be the registered owner of a vessel of large tonnage or rated as an occupier of property to the value of £60 a year, or that he must be possessed of real estate to the value of £200 a year. He believed in no instance in Ireland or in this country were any such property qualifications necessary for the election of a harbour board, and he could only say that the condition of boards constituted in this way was not such as to warrant the House in granting them extended powers or in dealing with them in any way until their constitution was amended. But there was something; beyond that; there was the qualification; for persons entitled to vote for these men. No one was entitled to vote unless he was the owner of a vessel of a certain tonnage, or was rated in respect to his house at the net value of £20 a year. At this moment the electorate which elected the Belfast Harbour Board consisted of 7, 775 electors. That was to say, that in a city which had a population of 340, 000 people there were only some seven thousand odd people qualified to vote for the election of members of the harbour board. There was also a very objectionable system of cumulative voting. It was impossible for anybody who had had any experience of similar boards to have any confidence in a board so constituted, and it was upon that broad ground that he took a Second-Reading objection to this Bill. He did not see why the board should be constituted in that particular way, or why the franchise should be so restricted. Every citizen in Belfast had an interest in the proper management of the port of that great city. How had the system worked out?

^* : The hon. Member will not be in order in discussing legislation relating to the constitution of the Belfast Harbour Board. That board is constituted by law, and there is nothing in this Bill which deals with the constitution of that board or its mode of election.

said he was not suggesting legislation, and he was simply taking a Second-Reading objection to the Bill, which he thought was a sound objection, namely, that he objected to the Bill because it gave extended powers to a board constituted in a particular way. Perhaps he might be allowed to call attention to a case which was precisely similar, and which occurred in 1882. Strange to say, it was a Belfast Harbour Bill, in which there was no reference, either good, bad, or indifferent, to the constitution of the harbour board or to the franchise, but upon that Bill the late Mr. Biggar was permitted to move a resolution to the effect that it was inexpedient to grant such extensive powers to any corporation elected with such a restricted franchise. That motion was allowed, and Mr. Biggar's speech was mainly and specifically directed to that one objection which he had to the Second Reading. Mr. Biggar commenced his speech by saying that his main objection was that the ratepayers had no opportunity of making their voice heard, and the consequence was that there was great dissatisfaction with regard to the conduct of the affairs of the harbour. Mr. Biggar went on to say that he would not argue the details, but would rest his objection upon the constitution of the board, and he was then permitted to move his resolution, the terms of which he had already stated to the House. He (Mr. Redmond) most respectfully urged that, in view of that precedent, the view he was taking was not an unreasonable or a disorderly one, and probably he would be allowed to complete the brief observations he desired to make without transgressing the ruling of the Chair. As a reason for refusing the Second Reading of this Bill, giving extended powers to a board so constituted, he desired to point out how this board had been worked in the past. Surely that was a perfectly legitimate and proper argument to use. He wished to point out that the working of this board had been carried out on precisely the same lines as the Belfast Corporation, which was constituted and elected in the same manner. Up to a few years ago the Belfast Corporation was elected upon a high franchise, with the result that, although out of 340, 000 inhabitants there were about 90, 000 Catholics in the city of Belfast, no Catholic was ever elected a member of that corporation. Precisely the same state of things existed in reference to the harbour board. No Catholic, so far as he knew, had ever been elected to the board. He was aware that they had the power to co-opt members, and he believed that, as a matter of fact, they did once co-opt a Catholic under very peculiar circumstances. It was at the time when the Home Rule Bill was before the country, and this Catholic suddenly changed sides and became a Unionist, and he was at once elected a member of the harbour board. That, however, was only the exception which proved the rule, and which showed the absurdity of the state of things which existed. The Catholics of Belfast were as interested in the port as any other members of the community. They had to pay their harbour dues, and it did seem at this time of the world's history a ridiculous thing that a great public body could be carried on on the narrow and bigoted lines which the Belfast Board still pursued. No one who was a Catholic was employed by this board. About £10,000 a year was paid by the board in salaries to important officials, and, after making the best inquiries he could, he was informed that a sum of about £200 a year was paid to the one or two Catholics who held minor positions, and he was further informed that the most responsible position given by this board to a Roman Catholic was that of a pilot. The Catholics of the whole of Ulster were concerned in the well-being of this great port, and it was a monstrous thing that they should be excluded from representation and employment because of their religion. The harbour of Belfast was policed by the harbour police. He refused to have any responsibility for giving any Bill such as this to the harbour board, and for sanctioning this new lease to the shipbuilding yards, in view of the fact that the harbour police had never been able to preserve the peace in these shipbuilding yards. Every time the public peace had been disturbed the disturbance had always been focussed in the territory which was policed by this board. On all similar occasions when such Bills had come before the House the argument of the promoters was that it was a private Bill, dealing only with certain matters, and it was inconvenient if not out of order to discuss the larger topics. But he might be allowed to remind the House that there were numberless precedents, and notably the Rathcar and Rathmines Bill, on which Sir Charles Dilke objected to the Bill until a wider franchise was included, so that the township boards could be reformed. In 1886 a very similar case arose. There was a Bill before the House dealing with the Belfast Main Drainage, and on that Bill the House of Commons discussed the wider question of the representation and the franchise, and eventually these discussions bore their fruit. In the Belfast Corporation Bill, in the Londonderry Corporation Bill, and in the 1896 Dublin Corporation Bill, these wider questions were discussed.

^* : That was done by general consent, and on that occasion I guarded myself by saying that it must not be regarded as a precedent.

said he was not resting his point upon one case. He found that the Instruction which was moved by the hon. and learned Member for North Louth was unanimously agreed to, and that what the Speaker said was that it seemed to him somewhat doubtful whether the Instruction was in order or not. Mr. Healy said that if it had been objected to he should like some further time to consider it in connection with the terms of the Bill; as, however, it appeared to be accepted by general consent he did not think it necessary to raise any objection. If he (Mr. Redmond) could not quote that as a precedent in his favour, certainly no one could quote it as a precedent against him, because it was a case where the Instruction was moved in accordance with four or five other precedents to which he had alluded. He was not mentioning these matters merely from the point of view of order—because the question of order did not arise—he alluded to them rather on the question of convenience, because in every one of the cases to which he had made allusion the argument put forward by the promoters of the Bill was that it was an inconvenient thing on a private Bill dealing with one subject to introduce other topics. He had alluded to this precedent in order to show that that argument was never held good by the House of Commons, but that in every case from 1882, when Mr. Biggar raised the question, down to 1896, every time as far as he knew—certainly according to the precedents he had quoted—the question of inconvenience was put on one side by the House of Commons. The House recognised that where a great grievance was shown to exist it would not stand in the way of private Members endeavouring to seize any opportunity, on a private Bill or otherwise, to remedy that grievance. He sincerely trusted the House of Commons would take a reasonable view of the matter. It was unreasonable—no man could say that it was reasonable—that the Belfast Harbour Board should be constituted and elected as it was. The Corporation of Belfast, which was in a similar position a few years ago, had been reformed, and he could conceive of no reason why a similar reform should not be applied to the harbour board. He appealed to the House of Commons, therefore, to act in this matter fairly, and to seize this opportunity to reform this absurd and antiquated system under which the management of the port of Belfast had been carried on. For these reasons he begged to move that the Bill be read this day three months.

Amendment proposed—

"To leave out the word 'now, ' and at the end of the Question to add the words 'upon this day three months. '"—( Mr. John Redmond. )

Question proposed,"That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."

said he could well understand that the House should regard a question of this kind as irregular, but when he had reminded hon. Members that it was only by so-called irregular discussions that they achieved any reforms in regard to these corporate authorities, he thought they should be a little more tender in regard to matters of this kind. It was the action of his late friend Mr. Biggar in 1882 which led to the Bill of 1883. In 1882, when Mr. Biggar moved in the matter, there were altogether only 900 electors for the water board in Belfast. Mr. Biggar had himself stood as a harbour commissioner. As a consequence of Mr. Biggar's action in 1882 the case was considered so gross that in 1883 a Bill was brought forward relating to the franchise. He on a former occasion thought he carried the then Chief Secretary with him when he suggested that there should be as regarded all of the harbour authorities of Ireland a Select Committee to inquire into the franchise affecting them, and as to the manner in which they discharged their duties. Un- doubtedly there was a very grave feeling all over the country as to these harbour commissioners in many parts of Ireland with respect to the way they managed their concerns, and that if there was a more popular body the burden of these harbour tolls could be more justly dealt with. He had constantly noticed this feeling in connection with the Belfast Harbour Board great grants of land to Messrs. Harland and Wolff and others. He was far from stating that the policy adopted had not led to the prosperity of the port and had not done a considerable amount of good—but at the same time, when they found these things publicly ratified between the Board aud an important body of shipbuilders like Messrs. Harland and Wolff, or like Messrs. Workman, an element of suspicion at once arose in one's mind as to whether this was not in the nature of some pocket deal or small transaction which would not have been arrived at if the franchise upon which that body was elected was of a wider and more generous and democratic character. Take the Catholic ratepayer of Belfast. He has no more access to the Belfast Harbour Board than he has to the Privy Council of the Lord Lieutenant, and yet he saw great grants of land and great gifts being made by the harbour board practically of one to another. It was this system of gifting away the land of the people that led to the great reform in connection with the old corporations. These might be perfectly proper things, but the point was that the general body of the public had not the opportunity of passing judgment on the prosperity of these agreements. If he were a citizen of Belfast he would be absolutely excluded from having any voice as to whether these gifts were proper or not. It would be said no doubt by hon. Members opposite, "Look how splendidly they manage the business, look how splendidly the harbour is managed, look at the magnificent members they return to the House of Commons."If anybody would take the trouble to look up Hansard before the year 1832 he would find that these were precisely the arguments by which the rotten boroughs were supported. Exactly the same arguments had been trotted out again and again wherever any attempt had been made to reform these corporations. He would ask the Government, who were responsible for law and order in Belfast, were they satisfied with the manner in which the harbour commissioners discharged their duties? It was in the comparatively narrow area controlled by the Belfast harbour commissioners that the whole focus of disorder in that great city arose. They gave land to Messrs. Harland and Wolff, but had His Majesty the King ever been offered a site for the purpose of barracks? He thought it would be a very important thing if the Belfast harbour commissioners could be induced to give a site for those barracks. Had the Government approached them? The policing of the harbour was most inadequate. There was that horrible case they all remembered when an unfortunate Catholic was flung into the water, and when drowning, instead of sending out a plank, the ruffians pelted him with iron nuts. That was done under the very eyes of the Belfast harbour commissioners, and the Government of the country from that day to the present had never raised a voice against the want of police protection in that part. It was a horrible case, and even the gentlemen who sat for Belfast were unable to defend it. But those who had an interest in the Catholics of Belfast were now asked to pass this Bill and give their sanction before the Government took the smallest pains to see that law and order were properly protected in the city. The Government at this moment had sent forward a man for trial for riotous incitements, and yet they did not take the common primary step of insisting that the Belfast harbour commissioners should erect police barracks on this area. Why, then, should they be asked to give their sanction to the further doings of the board? He must really decline to do so. He thought a very proper amendment would be to exclude commissioners from the board unless they had taken the oath against transubstantiation. That would be exactly the kind of amendment that the House would arrive at in measures of this kind, unless some reform was promised by the Government. If the Bill were now passed it must be done on the terms that a proper Bill was brought forward next year; or, if the promoters were unable to promise that, he respectfully suggested that they were entitled to ask for a Select Committee to inquire into the general working and constitution of the harbour boards all over the country.

said that of all the jokes that they had heard from the hon. and learned Member who had just sat down, the one he had introduced about transubstantiation was about the clumsiest to bring into a harbour Bill that he had ever heard. The Bill was a very simple one. It proposed to give extended powers to the harbour board in order that the industry which had so prospered in their midst might be rendered still more prosperous, and that Belfast might be equipped with better docks, in order to undertake more than the ordinary mercantile marine service, and might be able to undertake at least a portion of the service which they all looked to as likely to give opportunities for the building of some portion I of His Majesty's Navy. The hon. Member who introduced the Bill said that the franchise was without a parallel. It was a little old he admitted; he thought it dated from 1882. The most recent franchise passed by the House—namely, 1898—related by the harbour of Dublin. That franchise was higher by a considerable amount than the franchise of Belfast. The main objections in connection with the franchise were that Roman Catholics under a high franchise had no representation in connection with the Belfast harbour. In Dublin, where the Roman Catholics were in a majority and the Protestants in a minority, the high franchise had been preserved. It was quite apparent that the better sense of this House, at least, regulated the city of Dublin and its port. It had been stated by the hon. Member that the franchise for the Belfast Harbour Trust was most inadequate and illiberal. If the hon. Member had studied the franchises of other harbour trusts in the United Kingdom he would have found that in comparison that of Belfast was the more liberal. He would give the hon. Member those in the United Kingdom.

^* : Order, order! Observations by the hon. Member as to the franchise of other harbour authorities would be entirely beyond the scope of the discussion on this Bill. Hon. Members opposite have objected to the franchise in this Bill, and the hon. Member repudiated their observations; but to enter into a general discussion of harbour franchise would be, I think, entirely out of order.

said he was merely trying to reply to the statements made, placing Belfast in the most unenviable position compared with other harbour authorities, and accusing the Belfast authorities of bigotry. They had heard various statements made with regard to the harbour trust. They resolved themselves into two or three main points. The first was that Roman Catholics were not employed by the harbour trust. He could not speak of that. He presumed that the best man was taken on, and generally his experience was that if Roman Catholics were capable of doing the work they got a fair share of it. [Cries of "No" from the Irish Benches.] Of course, hon. Members might doubt it, and declare that it was not true, but he was quite prepared to say that the liberal employment of Roman Catholics was as great in Belfast as the corresponding employment of Protestants in other parts of Ireland where Roman Catholics predominated. [Cries of "Oh!" from the Irish Benches.]

How many Catholics are employed by the Belfast Harbour Trust?

said he would give the House figures relating to Belfast and other ports in Ireland.

^* : I think that is open to the same objection. It is going into the general question of the employment of Roman Catholics and Protestants all over Ireland, which is out of order.

said he would not pursue the matter further. With regard to the policing of the harbour, hon. Members said there was no police protection within the shipbuilding yards in Belfast, and no provision for the protection of workers who might belong to different denominations. Did anyone in his senses imagine that the firms of Workman, Clark and Co. and Harland and Wolff, would tolerate the police in their works, or that any London merchant would allow policemen to go into his warehouses?

The police would force their way in if there was a riot.

They forced their way into the House of Commons. [Cries of "Order."]

Yes, I believe in the case of the Irish proceedings in the House of Commons hon. Members speak feelingly.

^* : Order, order!

said the interruption came from the other side, and he was merely replying to it. There were two classes of police employed in Belfast. There were the police employed by the Harbour Commissioners, whose duty it was primarily to watch the property within the harbour boundaries. He was not even sure that they had the power of arrest. Although occasionally persons had been arrested, he believed it was very questionable whether, as a matter of law, the harbour police had the power of arrest. But the main body in Belfast which protected life and property was the Royal Irish Constabulary. They were responsible for peace and good order whether within the harbour boundaries or outside; but when the harbour trust leased to private individuals or firms part of their property it became the private property of the lessees, and no policeman had the right to go upon it. With regard to what had been said by previous speakers about the recent riots, might he follow the subject? He did not like to do it. He held—

^* said that if the hon. Member wished to discuss the Belfast riots he certainly would be out of order.

said he would be sorry to pursue the matter further, because he held much too sacred the employment of all classes and the preservation of the peace of the city, to do anything which might jeopardise that employment or endanger that peace, or render workmen in the same employment antagonistic to each other. He hoped the debate would be carried on on lines which would reflect credit, not only upon the House of Commons, but upon Belfast. They were discussing a Bill dealing with the great industry which was the pride not only of Belfast, but, he believed, of the whole of Ireland, and the House was simply asked to entrust that industry to men elected by a franchise lower than that on which any other harbour authority in the kingdom was elected. [Cries of "No, no."] He believed he was correct, and if he was not allowed to give statistics he would content himself with making that statement. Having done so, he trusted the House would render that duty which it owed to the great governing body which had largely contributed to the success of Belfast, and would remember that indirect taxation, so far as the citizens of Belfast were concerned, had been equally balanced, that the support of the harbour was equalised between shipping and merchandise, a thing which had no parallel in the kingdom; that of the income of the harbour one half was assessed upon ships and the other half upon goods; that the imports of goods to Belfast ramified all over the west and north of Ireland; and that the importers had a vote for the harbour commissioners. To put the franchise upon what was called popular lines would be an entire reversal of the policy which had been pursued throughout the length and breadth of the kingdom. The Bill was simply meant to extend the power of leasing by the harbour trust, which had done so much for the welfare of Belfast. Every citizen in Belfast knew what was going on, and had had due notice, and could have petitioned Parliament if he had thought fit. The measure really came before the House unopposed, except by those who were not representative of Belfast, and by the merest accident connected themselves with the city. He therefore asked that the voice of Belfast might be heard, and that the Bill should be read a second time, and in the ordinary course go before a Committee of the House, where the pros and cons would be duly weighed and investigated.

said that the hon. Member who had just sat down did not seem to appreciate the manner in which legislation had been passed for Belfast in reference to private Bills. The Belfast main drainage franchise had been enjoyed long before similar franchises had been conceded in other towns in Ireland. There was a close connection between the franchises for the main drainage and the harbour trust.

said that the Main Drainage Act directly affected the people; this Bill did not.

said that that was the merest quibble. Shippers and importers were assessed for harbour and other dues, and every consumer was affected by these. That was an elementary proposition, and everyone in Belfast and neighbourhood was directly interested in the concession of these large quantities of land. Would the firm of Workman, Clark and Co. or Harland and Wolff voluntarily surrender their present leases and all their present privileges unless it was to their advantage? Certainly not. They could only raise this question on the Second Reading of the Bill. The hon. Member had talked about the citizens of Belfast not petitioning to be heard against the Bill, but they would have had no locus standi. The hon. Gentleman knew that the people had no chance of having their views expressed in regard to these private Bills on town or harbour boards, and it was only in the House on the Second Reading of the Bills that their voice could be heard through the Irish representatives. That was done by Mr. Sexton in 1886, when he was Member for Belfast, and when he introduced a great municipal reform through the means of a private Bill. Similarly, the hon. Member for Waterford was endeavouring to secure a more representative harbour board for Belfast than was provided in this Bill. The hon. Member spoke of the lower franchise for the Belfast Harbour Board than for any other harbour board in the United Kingdom, but in Cork the harbour was managed by the corporation, which was elected by the Parliamentary franchise.

^* : Order, order! The hon. Member cannot discuss the Cork Harbour Board on this Bill.

repeated that the only method by which traders could bring their grievances before the House was on the Second Reading of a Bill of this kind.

said that the irregular and indirect way in which such a question as this had to be raised was the least of the evils of the way in which Irish business was dealt with in the House. It was a matter of great humiliation to him and those who sat on those benches that they had to meet in this House with the bigottedness and narrowness of the religious and political views of their own countrymen, but he appealed to the hon. Gentlemen who represented Ulster constituencies and the dominant political and religious feeling of that part of the country to take this matter out of the hands of the Nationalist Members, and to take away from them the duty of coming time after time to the House of Commons and asking it to force an Irish city to adopt the same broad spirit of tolerance and freedom with regard to these matters as existed in every other city of this great nation. Could anyone—any body of English or Scotch Members, whatever their politics or creed—come to the House of Commons and be in a position to truly declare that a large section of the population of any city were debarred from all share in the government of the city or its ports because of their religious creed? Such a thing was not only incredible but absolutely impossible. One hon. Member for Belfast had made the statement that the harbour board in its dealings knew and made no distinctions as to the religious creed of those whom it employed. The hon. Gentleman had great Parliamentary courage and deportment, but he would require all his courage and Parliamentary deportment to make such a statement and ask the House to believe it. Did he not know the time-honoured custom—or rather the time- dishonoured custom—of the harbour board to find employment only for those of a particular creed?

was understood to deny that statement. He could not say at that moment that he knew the religion of any of the employees of the harbour board.

said that the extraordinary thing about Ireland was that everybody knew the religion of everybody else, except hon. Gentlemen who sat on the opposite benches. Out of £10, 000 given in salaries and wages, only £200 a year reached the pockets of Catholics. Such a result could not be accidental; it could only be the outcome of deliberate religious exclusiveness. Was it not a disgrace to a city that a man whose religious creed was not that of the majority of the population should be unable to earn his livelihood there? It was quite time such a system was removed. In the Bill before the House there were several agreements and contracts with the corporation. The history of contracts with corporations both in this country and in Ireland showed that contracts made under a restricted franchise required to be most carefully scrutinised and considered. The Corporation of Dublin at the present moment was greatly embarrassed in its great undertakings by the fact that in the days of restricted franchise the money of its conservators had been voted away. When there were large contracts of this kind, by which for a certain length of time the property of the people was given away by a public body, that body ought to be representative of the whole city. A contrast had been made between the qualification of the Belfast Harbour Board and other boards. To that he would not allude; he would merely confine himself to the statement that the remarks of the hon. Gentleman were entirely misleading, and that if the hon. Gentleman took the trouble to look into the constitution of other boards he would find they were constituted on a very different and much more democratic basis. But is was not merely a question of the basis upon which they were constituted. Everybody knew that a harbour board in England would not distribute its employment according to the politics and religion of its members, and he boldly stated that the Belfast Harbour Board had uniformly acted in a bigoted, narrow, and he might almost say in a mediæval manner, and abused the control placed in their hands, and for that reason the Nationalist Members were entitled to ask the House to refuse them any further powers until their constitution was altered.

^* said he thought this was a very unfortunate method of raising the question. So far as the Bill was concerned, he thought it was not only a necessary, but a good Bill; it proposed to do work that would tell in favour of Belfast, and he was perfectly sure that everything that had been done in connection with the Bill had been done in good faith. He was quite clear that the Belfast Harbour Board had done an enormous amount of good for the port of Belfast. Belfast was in some respects the most remarkable city in the United Kingdom. The population of Glasgow had increased eight times in the ten years from 1800 to 1891. Belfast had increased in population thirteen and a half times in the same period, and this prosperity was largely due to the way in which the harbour board controlled the port of Belfast. But he recollected a case somewhat analogous to the one before the House when he first entered Parliament. Mr. Sexton, who then sat for West Belfast, and whom everybody who knew him would admit was not only an able representative, but an honour to the House, introduced a Bill to reform an analogous body. He listened to the arguments of Mr. Sexton, the whole of which were resisted by every Ulster representative, and he spoke and voted in favour of Mr. Sexton's proposals. It was needless to say what was thought of him for so doing—that went without saying—but he lived to see those proposals carried into law, and to see those proposals work for the benefit of the city, for the reason that the Catholic minority, though a small one, secured representation, and was able to plead its own cause, and all trouble in that respect had passed away. That was the case with the corporation of Belfast, and the same thing was pleaded for to-day in connection with another body. It had been said that the harbour board was different to the corporation of Belfast, but what the House had to remember, and he hoped would remember, in dealing with the questions especially affecting Belfast, was that the question was not that things are different in Belfast to what they are in Liverpool—everything was different. In Belfast there was a great community of between 90, 000 and 100, 000 in the midst of another great community double the number, and feeling was so bitter, and relationship so strained between the two classes that unless the Government interfered there was no chance of the minority getting what all thoughtful people would endeavour to give them, an opportunity to plead their own cause. He was not prepared to vote against the Bill, but he thought, looking at all the circumstances of Belfast, those in control there should take the facts into consideration, and pave the way for a moderate representation of the minority.

mentioned that he was a member of a similar harbour board in the south of Ireland, in the city of Cork, which consisted of twenty-four members. Out of these, ten were Protestants, and the chief engineer, the harbour master and the auditor were also Protestants. He objected to the Bill on a different ground altogether to that which was outlined by the bigotry and unjust treatment which the Catholics were receiving. One point which he might emphasise was that the harbour board and the police they employed had no power over the island, which was in the possession of Harland and Wolff and Workman and Clark, and the reasonable demand which was made was that a police barrack should be made upon this island before permission was given for—

^* : Order, order! The hon. Member cannot urge the erection of police barracks on the island of the harbour board; that does not arise on the Second Reading.

I object to the Bill being passed on the ground that it will deprive the harbour board of the right of having these buildings upon the island.

^* : Order, order! That does not arise. The hon. Gentleman might as well argue that these powers should not be given unless a museum or some other public building were erected.

submitted that if the House insisted upon not passing this Bill until permission was given to have a museum erected on the island they had a right to do so.

^* : Order, order! The argument must have some relevancy to the question before the House.

said he thought that the acknowledgment of the hon. Gentleman opposite, who stated that the police had no control and that the Chief Secretary for Ireland would give no authority that the police in the city should act in that city as in any other city in the due performance of their functions, justified them in asking that this Bill should be rejected. He did not think they should give the board and their committee, who traded for their own benefit, priority in the performance of their privileges. They must give some elective power to the people who would have to pay the costs of the board. The harbour board said their dues were on the ships coming in; but he contended that all that money would have to be paid by the consumer in the long run, because if these boats brought commodities into the port of Belfast for distribution in the district, the people who consumed those commodities would have to pay the dues upon them. He submitted that, having regard to all the circumstances, and looking at the fact that the number of men affected was 100, 000, the House of Commons would not only not grant new powers but that they would not tolerate the exclusive system, upon which the board at present worked. The House had had to interfere in a similar matter in the case of the Belfast Corporation. The minority in this case had no chance of raising their voices or making themselves heard except by appealing to those who did not represent them, except in sympathy. Therefore the House should be very careful of the way in which they dealt with this Bill; and until the Catholic minority in Belfast was treated fairly they should not give any greater powers to the harbour board. He thought the House had a right to stipulate the conditions under which the Belfast Harbour Board should carry out the proposals which they had set forth in this Bill.

said he recognized the broad-mindedness and fairness of the hon. Member for North Belfast. They would like that he and those who had influence in Ulster should endeavour to address their minds to the present unfortunate condition of things which animated these discussions time after time in the House of Commons. To his mind the remedy was to be sought for not so much in alteration of the franchise as in the redistribution of seats, even with regard to the existing franchise. It was quite right, as had been said, that the franchise in Belfast was lower than in Dublin and some other ports, but in the city of Dublin their body represented the mercantile community, the shipping interests, and the corporation. The mercantile community returned Protestants and Catholics alike; the shipping people made their selection altogether irrespective of creed, and in the case of the Dublin Corporation there were some Catholics and some Protestants, with the present result that the Chairman was Catholic and the vice-chairman Protestant. No difficulty arose, because the people recognised that the question of religious differences ought not to crop up where commercial interests were concerned. What they contended was that if there was religious rancour in the city of Belfast in regard to the harbour board, there would also be some rancour in regard to their business relations. It so happened that in the franchise which they had it was the combined vote extending over the whole city which gave into the hands of the majority the entire selection of the candidates, but by a redistribution of the city wards the remedy was to be found. It was the duty of the hon. Member for North Belfast, and the duty of those responsible for their city, to see that some remedy should be devised by which they could show the world that those who differed from the majority in religion or politics should still have fair play. The House would look to the Member for North Belfast and the promoters of the Bill to make it possible that there should be such safe-guards.

said he should like to say a few words on behalf of his constituency. As the House had been reminded, there was a great difference in regard to many things between England and Ireland, but there was one class of matters which might with advantage be dealt with in the same way in both countries—namely, commercial matters. When the House was face to face with a question of this kind, dealing with a great harbour, with an immenseand prosperous business, surely the religious element might be left on one side. It had not been alleged that there was any gross mismanagement in connection with the harbour at Belfast. On the contrary, the prosperity of Belfast had been astounding. The House was now asked to take an absolutely exceptional course with regard to an unopposed Bill, not on the ground of any maladministration, or to advance the prosperity of Belfast, but in the hope that by penalising the city in this way Belfast might be induced to give a certain amount of employment to another class. It was an entire mistake to suppose that there was any desire to prevent Roman Catholics going on the board. Any Roman Catholic with a £20 rating, or owning twenty tons of shipping, could go on the board in the same way as anybody else.

contended that the franchise all round of harbours required amendment. When the original Bills were passed there was not the same feeling with regard to representative authorities as now existed. The taxation which enabled the port and dock boards to exist was practically levied on the community at large, and therefore all should have a voice in the election of those bodies. The time had arrived when the whole question should be recon- sidered. A beginning must be made somewhere, and as Belfast claimed to be a reforming city, the beginning might very well be made there. He agreed, however, with the main purport of the Bill with regard to giving increased powers to the board, because the shipbuilding industry could not go on unless long leases were given of the shipbuilding yards. But it was a dangerous thing to allow a harbour board elected by a small minority of citizens to enter into contracts with companies practically of the same political faith and way of thinking as themselves. The boards ought to be elected on a popular franchise, the same as a corporation or any other representative institution. There was no difference in the principle of the matter, and, therefore, he should support the Amendment.

said it was not a fact, as had been stated in the debate, that the harbour franchise in Belfast was lower than in any other part of Ireland. The hon. Member was proceeding to refer in detail to Limerick, when—

ruled that the mode of election in individual places could not be discussed.

said his object was to point out that in the south of Ireland many of these posts were held by Protestants.

The hon. Member is persisting in disregarding my ruling. If he continues to do so I shall have to name him.

said he had no desire to persist. He could only claim that the case put forward by the hon. Member for Waterford had not been in any sense answered.

said he, too, wished to enter a strenuous protest against the assumption of the hon. Member for West Belfast that anybody not directly connected with that city, or representing one of its Parliamentary Divisions, was out of court in calling attention to matters of vital concern to the Catholic population, who represented something like one-third of the total community. The Catholics of Belfast were entitled to have their grievances voiced by their fellow-religionists and political sympathizers in the House. This was an extremely far-reaching Bill, but he claimed that when the harbour commissioners came to Parliament for an extension of their powers, hon. Members were entitled to ask whether they had shown themselves worthy custodians of the powers they already had. On a recent occasion the Chief Secretary made the pitiful confession that the harbour police were a mere fiction, and that the ordinary police could not patrol the harbour regions without the protection of the military. The harbour police were in fact a sort of Gilbert-Sullivan guard. The hon. Member for North Belfast had in fact declared that the ordinary police had no right to enter works which had been so splendidly developed under the management of Messrs. Harland and Wolff; but he would like to know if the same principle applied in the south and west of Ireland, where, when a meeting in a friendly farmer's back yard or parlour was objected to by some local bumble, private premises to his knowledge had been raided. He objected to the doctrine that no policeman had a right to set his foot in those works. That region was periodically mad with an orgie of cruelty and murder, absolutely unrestrained, and at intervals Catholics could only go there at the risk of life or limb.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes, 228; Noes, 154. (Division List No. 318.)

Main Question put, and agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

I now propose to move the motion standing in my name, referring the Belfast Harbour Bill to a Select Committee of nine Members, five to be nominated by the House, and four by the Committee of Selection. I do not think it is necessary to trouble the House with many words in making this proposal. The Belfast Corporation Bill was before this House in the year 1896, and it was referred to such a Committee.

I do not think this motion is accepted.

I object,

It must go over until to-morrow unless it is agreed to.

I have also an Instruction on the Paper. Does the same ruling apply to that?

Yes, because it does not stand in the Paper"by order."

Has my Instruction also been objected to?

The time has not yet arrived for moving it.

Bill committed.

laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bills, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders which are applicable thereto have been complied with, namely:

Ordered, That the Bills be read a second time to-morrow.

Llandrindod Wells Urban District Council Water Bill

Lords' Amendments considered, and agreed to.

BRISTOL CORPORATION CEMETERY BILL [Lords]

Read the third time, and passed, without amendment.

KING'S NORTON AND NORTHFIELD URBAN DISTRICT TRAMWAYS BILL [Lords]

Read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.

SHEFFIELD CORPORATION BILL [Lords]. (BY ORDER.)

As amended, considered; to be read the third time.

Derby Corporation Bill

Ordered, That, in the case of the Derby Corporation Bill, Standing Orders 84, 214, and 239 be suspended, and that the Bill be now taken into consideration, provided amended prints shall have been previously deposited.—( Mr. Caldwell. )

Bill accordingly considered as amended.

Ordered, That Standing Orders 223 and 243 be suspended, and that the Bill be now read the third time.—( Mr. Caldwell. )

Bill accordingly read the third time, and passed.

GAS ORDERS CONFIRMATION BILL [Lords]

Read the third time, and passed, without amendment.

Dundee Corporation Order Confirmation Bill

[UNDER SECTION 7, SUB-SECTION (2), OF THE PRIVATE LEGISLATION PROCEDURE (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1899.]

Considered; to be read the third time to-morrow.

AYR COUNTY BUILDINGS PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL [Lords]

[UNDER SECTION 9, SUB-SECTION (4), OF THE PRIVATE LEGISLATION PROCEDURE (SCOTLAND) Act, 1899.]

Considered; to be read the third time to-morrow.

PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2) BILL [Lords]

As amended, considered; to be read the third time to-morrow.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 7) BILL. (BY ORDER.)

Order for consideration read, and discharged.

Ordered, That the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills do examine the Bill with respect to compliance with the Standing Orders relative to Private Bills, and that the Examiners have leave to sit and proceed forthwith.—( The Chairman of Ways and Means. )

ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 7) BILL [Lords]

ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 8) BILL [Lords]

ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 9) BILL [Lords]

ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 11) BILL [Lords].

WATER ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 1) BILL [Lords].

WATER ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 2) BILL [Lords].

Read a second time, and committed.

BOURNEMOUTH CORPORATION BILL [Lords]

Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

Private Bills (Group K)

reported from the Committee on Group K of Private Bills, That, for the convenience of parties, the Committee had adjourned till Thursday, at half-past Eleven of the clock.

Report to lie upon the Table.