MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is aware that it is not in order to discuss the individual Bills in the Schedule on the Second Reading of the Bill. was another MR. MACVEAGH (Down, S.) said that this measure was a hardy annual which might accurately be described as an anachronism. There were two classes of Bills contained in this measure; the first consisted of Bills of undoubted value and the rest were a lot of MR. MACVEAGH said he only wished rubbish which should be cast into to point out that notwithstanding the the dustbin of the House. When the spirit of inquiry was abroad, and at a time when the grand inquest of the nation was being held, they should try and separate the wheat from the chaff, and only embody in this measure the Acts which the House desired to be made permanent. One of the Acts mentioned in this Bill was the Sunday Closing (Ireland) Act, and everybody in Ireland was in favour of that Act, and he did not see why year after year they should be called upon to renew that Act. Some day the brewers, who were a considerable power in this House, would rush down to move the omission of this Bill from the Schedule. Another Bill in the Schedule was the Peace Preservation Act of 1881, which was known in Ireland as the Arms Act. He thought it was useless to re-enact that measure when its adminis tration in Ireland had become an absolute farce. He presumed that he would not be in order in going into its details, but he might be allowed to say that the pledges given twenty-eight years ago to move that the Bill be read this day three months. MR. JOSEPH DEVLIN (Kilkenny, N.) seconded the motion. He protested against the system of the Government bringing forward this measure mostly at one or two o'clock in the morning. One of the Bills proposed to be continued was the Peace Preservation Act, which was passed twenty-four years ago to meet an emergency which had not existed since. Now that the Coercion Act was repealed he thought the least the Government could do would be to drop the Peace Preservation Act out of the Schedule, and show some consistency in their policy in regard to Irish affairs. 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. MacVeagh.) Question "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question," put, and agreed to. Amendment proposed to the Bill— "In page 3, line 29, after the word 'otherwise,' to insert the words, 'Nothing in this Act shall affect any powers which a railway (Sir Charles Renshaw.) company may have independent of this Act."" Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill." MR. CALDWELL (Lanarkshire, Mid) said he had been very anxious to promote the passage of this Bill, but he felt that, being forced by all these Amendments, the Government the exigencies of the situation to accept had practically handed everything over to the railway companies. The Bill had been so whittled down that it was hardly worth passing. MR. A. J. BALFOUR understood that this was more or less an agreed measure. He was very unwilling to drive the House at that time of the morning, but if it could be understood that the Bill would pass at the next sitting, after the rest of the business, he was ready to agree to the Bill read a second time, and committed adjournment. for this day. existing powers. That was not the case, and words which were not needed were much better left out. The hon. Member for Renfrewshire ought to be sufficiently satisfied with the way with which the Bill had been cut down in the interests of railway companies without insisting on further Amendments of this kind. Question put, and agreed to. MR. HERBERT SAMUEL (Yorkshire, Cleveland) said that while there was a disposition to accept this Bill with gratitude, that gratitude was as modest in its proportions as were the provisions of the Bill. There were many points connected Bill to be read the third time to with the rural branches of the subject morrow. [Bill 316.] which required to be dealt with, such as the facilitation of the acquisition of land for houses and the simplification of the procedure for getting houses erected in rural districts, but having made a protest against the homeopathic nature of this dose of social reform, he had no doubt the House would be glad to accept the Bill. Bill read a second time, and committed for to-morrow. MOTOR CARS [EXCISE DUTY). Resolution reported, "That it is expedient to authorise the imposition of an Excise Duty on persons employed as drivers of motor-cars of the same amount as is payable on male servants, in pursuance of any Act of the present session to amend The Locomotives on Highways Act, 1896." Resolution agreed to. POST OFFICE (CONTRACT FOR THE Resolved, That the Contract, dated 9th day of March 1903, with the Campbeltown and Glasgow Steam Packet Joint Stock Company, Limited, for the conveyance of mails between Glasgow, Greenock, and Campbeltown, printed in Parliamentary Paper No. 132, of session 1903, be approved."-(Mr. Elliot.) Whereupon, in pursuance of the Order of the House of the 28th day of July, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put. Adjourned at ten minutes after Speech indicates revision by the Member. An Asterisk (*) at the commencement of a HOUSE OF LORDS. Friday, 7th August, 1903. PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS. The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House that the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificate from the Examiners that the Standing Orders applicable to the following Bill have been complied with: Patent Office (Extension). The same was ordered to lie on the Table Coventry Electric Tramways Bill; Strabane and Letterkenny Railway Bill, now Strabane, Raphoe, and Convoy Railway Bill. Read 3, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons. Wood Green Urban District Council Bill, Commons Reasons for disagreeing to one of the Lords Amendments considered: The said Amendment not insisted on; and a message ordered to be sent to the Commons to acquaint them therewith. Sugar Convention Bill; Patriotic Fund Bill. Brought from the Commons. Liverpool University Bill [H.L.]; South Staffordshire Tramways Bill [H.L.]. Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments. Brighton Corporation Bill [H.L.]. Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments: The said Amendments considered, and agreed to. RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC. PORT OF LONDON BILL. Report from the Joint Committee made on the 13th of July last, to be printed. [No. 183.] TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES). No. 3052, China (Chefoo); No. 3053, Spain (Barcelona); No. 3054, Japan (North Formosa); No. 3055, Japan (Shimonaseki). COLONIES (ANNUAL). St. Helena. (Report for 1902). VOL. CXXVII. [FOURTH SERIES.] A PERSONAL EXPLANATION. THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (The Earl of MORLEY): My Lords, I desire to make a personal explanation with regard to my statement on July 30th in this House during the discussion on the Beckenham Urban District Council Bill.† I am sorry Lord Monkswell is not in his place, but I see Lord Tweedmouth here, and perhaps he will allow me to make the observations chiefly to him. In the discussion on the Beckenham Bill the other day, I said there were many cases in which local authorities construct tramdistricts through which they pass, into ways, with two-thirds consent of the districts of other local authorities. Lord Monkswell controverted that statement; and at the time I was not able to support + See (4) Debates, cxxvi., 826. K it by evidence, but I now admit that I made far too wide a statement on that occasion. I am not quite sure whether Lord Monkswell did not even go a little too far himself in saying no such cases had ever arisen, for this reason, that it is almost impossible to tell what cases have and have not arisen. I have consulted the examiners on the subject, and all the evidence they have is that two-thirds of the local authorities through which the tramways run have given their consent; but it may be that, although two-thirds assent, one authority may be invaded against its wil. Whether that is so or not, I am extremely anxious that no state ment of mine which is inaccurate should remain uncontradicted by myself. I wish to be perfectly frank on the matter. I believe cases have arisen in which companies have invaded the tramway areas of local authorities, and, after all, when a local authority is outside its district I regard it very much in the same position as a trading company. I was anxious to put myself right in this matter, and to state that I did make a far wider statement than was justified by the evidence. At the same time I wish to say this, that I do not consider that any principle is involved in the matter. I also wish to say that even if I had not based my arguments on that point it would not have altered the opinion at which I had arrived with regard to the particular Bill which was then under discussion. LORD TWEEDMOUTH; I beg to acknowledge on behalf of my noble friend Lord Monks well and myself, the frankness of the statement which has just been made by the noble Earl the Chairman of Committees. After all, it is only what every one of your Lordships would have expected from him. We all look to the noble Earl as the very model of fairness, and I think it is that knowledge that commends him so much to your Lordships. But with regard to what he said, it is a matter of some importance that he acknowledges that he spoke without full information on that point. When I was asked to bring forward this question of the Beckenham tramway I was imformed that there was no precedent with regard to the area of the London County Council. I The Earl of Morley. at once told the solicitors to the London County Council, that that was all very well, but that I should like to know what had been the fact in other cases in other parts of the country; and I was then assured that, after full inquiry, they could find no case in which a minor local authority had invaded the territory of a major local authority anywhere in the country, except with the consent, either given or implied, of the major local authority. At any rate, the only case that they could find, about which there was a doubt, was in the neighbourhood of Sunderland, and there, as a matter of fact, some arrangement was arrived at. I am very glad my noble friend has made his statement, because I think it very much strengthens the claim I made, that at any rate the decision of your Lordships' Committee, in respect to the Beckenham tramway, should not be taken as a precedent by future Committees of this or the other House of Parliament. IRISH LAND BILL. On the Order of the day for the House being again in Committee being read THE DUKE OF ABERCORN said before the House goes into Committee on this Bill, I should like to ask the noble Duke the Leader of the House on what day he intends to take the Report stage. THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (The Duke of DEVONSHIRE): Of course, it would be convenient if we could take the Report on Monday, but as the Second Reading of the Sugar Convention Bill is fixed for that day take the Report stage of this Bill. probably there will scarcely be time to THE MARQUESS OF RIPON: No. THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: Then we must put it down for Tuesday. THE MARQUESS OF RIPON: There is certain to be a considerable debate on the Second Reading of the Sugar Bill, and I am sure noble Lords would not think of taking the Report stage of this Bill after that debate. |