MR. SEXTON: With reference to the statement of the hon. Member for Northampton, I beg to give Notice that when Order 23 is reached I shall move that the Lords' Reasons be circulated before their Amendments be considered. What course will the Government take with respect to that Motion? Bill; consideration of Lords' Reasons, | follow the usual course, if there is any and consequential Amendments in wish on the part of the hon. Member regard to the engagement given yester- that they should not be taken to-night. day by the First Lord of the Treasury, I am entirely in the hands of the House. I wish to ask him whether the Government have considered the unanimous Resolution of the Trades Union Congress protesting against the excision of the Irish Wages Clause as depriving the Irish working people of their rights; what is the result of that consideration; and whether, as the Bill came down from the Lords only yesterday, and as the Lords' Reasons have not yet been circulated amongst Members, the right hon. Gentleman will cause the Reasons to be printed and put down for consideration on Monday? THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. H. SMITH) (Strand, Westminster): Sir, the Government have, undoubtedly, considered the Resolution to which the hon. Gentleman has called my attention, and which was communicated to me by telegraph; but I must point out that the Government are without any power to take any action whatever in the matter. The decision of the House of Lords is one which it is not in their power, in the slightest degree, to contravene. It rests with the House, as a House, to determine whether they will insist upon the Amendments to the Bill which were inserted in this House; and, in that event, if they do so insist the Bill is lost, under the Rules and Regulations which guide the practice of Parliament. It is for the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill to say what course he proposes to take. MR. SEXTON: I wish to ask the hon. Member for Northampton, who is in charge of the Bill, what are his intentions with regard to it, and with regard to the circulation of the Lords' Amendments? MR. BRADLAUGH (Northampton): I, of course, extremely regret that the Lords have thought it their right or their duty to strike out two clauses of the Bill; but it seems to me, that even as it stands, the Bill is a most valuable Bill, and I dare not risk its loss, though I quite understand the feeling of the hon. Member for West Belfast. It will, therefore, be my duty to move that this House do not insist upon disagreement with the Lords. Of course, with reference to the question of the circulation of the Lords' Reasons, the matter should MR. W. H. SMITH: It rests with the hon. Member in charge of the Bill to say what course he would desire to be taken. MR. BRADLAUGH: I can only say that the course of the Bill in this House has been so harmonious that I only wish to do what is entirely in accordance with the wishes of the House. I do not want to force on a discussion on Reasons which are not printed. If it is thought better to take the Bill on Monday I have no objection. MR. SPEAKER said, there was no reason why the Lords' Reasons should not be printed at once, if the hon. Member for West Belfast would move that it be done. MR. SEXTON moved, "That the Lords' Reasons be printed, and that they be considered on Monday." Motion agreed to. LAW AND JUSTICE-THE MAGIS- MR. CLANCY (Dublin Co., N.) asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he could now make any statement as to the intention of the Lord Chancellor with respect to the two Dartmouth magistrates who had been guilty of misconduct on the public highway? THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS) (Birmingham, E.), in reply, said, that the Lord Chancellor's Secretary had informed him that the Lord Chancellor was making inquiries as to the facts, and that the matter was still under consideration. COAL MINES, &c. REGULATION BILL. In reply to Mr. ARTHUR O'CONNOR (Donegal, E.), THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH) (Strand, Westminster) said, he expected this Bill would come down from the Lords that day, and in that event the Amendments introduced by the Lords would be printed and taken into consideration on Monday. CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE MR. GEDGE (Stockport): It may be convenient to the House if I now state Patrick Cooper, to which his attention had been already called. The man had died in consequence of injuries received in the service of the Queen, and his widow, who had seven children depending on her, was now in great need in Belfast. A vote of £22,500 had been taken for compassionate allowances for the widows of officers; but the noble Lord told the House that he had no power to give a penny by way of compassionate allowance to the widows and orphans of the men. He begged to move the reduction of the Vote by £1,000. Amendment proposed, to leave out "£906,800," and insert "£905,800." -(Mr. Sexton.) Question proposed, "That '£906,800 stand part of the Resolution." THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMI the course I propose to take with regard to the Resolution of which I have given Notice, on the subject of the Ballycore meeting on Sunday last. In consequence of the attacks made upon the Government in regard to their conduct on that occasion, and in view of the approaching termination of the Session, I thought it better that their hands should be strengthened in the administration of RALTY (Lord GEORGE HAMILTON) the law in Ireland by a definite Resolu- (Middlesex, Ealing) said, that the hon. tion approving of their conduct, rather Member appeared to receive with some than that an impromptu discussion, pro- incredulity his statement that he had bably abortive, should arise on a Motion no option whatever in the matter. He for the adjournment of the House; and, would read the Regulations on the subtherefore, I gave Notice of the Resolu-ject. The noble Lord then read the tion, which I intended to move as soon as I could obtain a proper opportunity. Now, however, circumstances have altered, because formal Notice has been given that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Sir William Harcourt) intends, on Monday next, to raise the question in a proper form upon the second reading of the Appropriation Bill; and, therefore, as I have no doubt whatever that the manner in which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby will introduce the subject to the House will be far more beneficial to the Government than any words of mine could be, I will withdraw my Motion. ORDER OF THE DAY. -0 SUPPLY.-REPORT. Resolutions [8th September] reported. MR. SEXTON (Belfast, W.) said, he hoped the noble Lord the First Lord of the Admiralty (Lord George Hamilton) would reconsider the case of the widow of a seaman of the Royal Navy named VOL. CCCXXI. [THIRD SERIES.] Regulations, from which it appeared that in every case it was necessary to show that the illness of which the man had died was directly traceable to injuries received while in the Service, and he also read medical certificates to the effect that Cooper's death was not the result of such injuries. The widow and her children, therefore, were_not_entitled to pension or gratuity. But there was a provision made for the children of such poor persons, and Mrs. Cooper having made application that two of her daughters should be educated out of the naval funds, her request was acceded to. Her third son was also eligible for Greenwich School, and if he passed the examination, he would take care that the boy should be admitted. Amendment, by leave withdrawn. Resolution agreed to. Resolutions Seven, Eight, Nine, and Ten agreed to. Eleventh Resolution read a second time. MR. CONYBEARE (Cornwall, Camborne), in moving to reduce the Vote by £100, said, he desired to call attention to the dismissal of a man from the с Hallamshire Volunteer Battalion. The hon. Member, in a lengthy and disjointed speech, read a number of letters, newspaper extracts, &c., placing the case of the ex-volunteer before the House. From these it appeared that on the occasion of a Jubilee demonstration in Sheffield, the man did not remove his helmet when "God save the Queen was being played, as the rest of the regiment did, and when asked to do so by the colour-sergeant, replied that he was a Republican. According to the man's version the colour-sergeant's request was accompanied by an oath, but this the latter denied. The matter was brought to the notice of the commanding officer, who dismissed the man from the battalion for insubordination, and afterwards caused him to be summoned for 30s., the amount of the capitation grant. After looking into the circumstances of the dismissal the magistrates decided in favour of the regiment, and made an order for the payment of the money. He (Mr. Conybeare) contended that this man had been dismissed and treated in this fashion entirely because of his political opinions, and asked the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War (Mr. E. Stanhope) whether, if he (Mr. Conybeare) professed himself a Republican, the right hon. Gentleman would assent to his removal from the corps to which he belonged? If a man was to be turned out of a Volunteer Corps for such paltry reasons it would have a very bad effect upon the Volunteer movement. Feelings of loyalty were not likely to be inspired in the minds of the people of this country if Republicans were prosecuted and made martyrs of. Amendment proposed to leave out "£655,000," and insert "£654,900." (Mr. Conybeare.) Question proposed, "That' £655,000' stand part of the Resolution." THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. E. STANHOPE) (Lincolnshire, Horncastle) said, he thought the Volunteer was singularly unfortunate in his advocate in the House of Commons. This man was dismissed for insubordination and using improper language, and for nothing else. He (Mr. E. Stanhope) had before him the report of the commanding officer, and the joint statement of two sergeants. One of the latter, whilst "God save the Queen” was being played, requested the man to uncover, as a member of Her Majesty's Forces. The man declined, saying he did not believe in anyone being his superior-that he was a Republican and a Socialist. When he was brought before the commanding officer, he at first denied that the occurrence had taken place, and then admitted that the evidence of the sergeant was true. That being so, the commanding officer rightly considered it a gross case of insubordi nation. This decision was come to and the man was punished, not because he was a Republican, but because he committed an act of insubordination and refused to obey the orders of his superior, an offence for which any member of Her Majesty's Forces was liable to be dismissed, and for which he deserved to be punished. Question put, and agreed to. Subsequent Resolutions agreed to. WAYS AND MEANS.-REPORT. CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) BILL. Resolution [8th September] reported. IRELAND-GRANT OF A CITY CHARTER TO BELFAST. MR. SEXTON (Belfast, W.) said, he wished to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, If the Government had yet come to a conclusion on the question of granting a City Charter to Belfast? The Government had already received evidence of the undoubted claims of Belfast to the title of City. THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH) (Strand, Westminster) said, no doubt the hon. Gentleman was perfectly right as to the claims of Belfast to a Charter of Constitution as a City, but there were a hundred difficulties in the way of granting it. No decision had yet been arrived at; but he would take care that the matter was pushed forward as speedily as possible. MR. SEXTON: Will the Government arrive at a decision before the Session ends? MR. W. H. SMITH: I am afraid not. Bill to apply a sum out of the Consolidated 37 Sale of Intoxicating Liquor {SEPTEMBER 9, 1887} on Sunday (Ireland) Bill. 38 thirty-first day of March, one thousand eight hundred and eighty-eight, and to appropriate the Supplies granted in this Session of Parliament, and that Mr. Courtney, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, and Mr. Jackson do prepare and bring it in. Bill presented, and read the first time. EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE BILL. (Mr. Jackson, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.) [BILL 363.] SECOND READING. Order for Second Reading read. Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time." that House for the people. Though the present Irish representation was largely composed of men who were teetotallers, and desirous of promoting temperance, they were against the continuance of this Bill, because it had failed in for some years past of the Sunday its object. The experience they had had Closing Act showed that the objects of the promoters had not been obtained, and that the opposition to the continuance of the Bill was fully justified. The habitual drunkard had not been reclaimed, while the respectable citizen was subjected to an amount of insult and humiliation. The beneficent intentions SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUOR ON of the promoters of the Bill had not been SUNDAY (IRELAND) BILL. OBSERVATIONS. MR. J. O'CONNOR (Tipperary, S.) said, he rose to oppose the second reading of the Bill for the purpose of drawing the particular attention of the House to the Irish Sunday Closing Bill, which was included in that measure. The House would, doubtless, be ready to extend to Ireland and England what were termed equal laws, although the expression had, so far as Ireland was concerned, lost much of its significance. It was well known that the intentions of the promoters of the Irish Sunday Closing Bill had not been borne out or verified. As expressed in the Act itself, the intention of the promoters of the Sunday Closing Bill was that drunkenness might be decreased in Ireland, and that thereby the material prosperity of the country would be increased. First he would endeavour to remove the stigma which had been sought to be placed on Ireland by this Bill. The facts and figures did not in any degree bear out the expectations which were formed of the Act when it was passed. It was admitted that the measure was an experimental one, but the experiment had failed, and experience had shown that it would not be successful. When the Bill was introduced, in 1878, 75 Irish Members supported it, but these Gentlemen were all of the classes who were not affected by the measure. He (Mr. J. O'Connor) had now to point out that the present Representatives from Ireland were against the Bill. The present Irish representation was drawn from the people. They knew the wants of the people. They were affected by any legislation carried in fulfilled; but the liberties of the respectable citizens of Ireland had been curtailed. The stigma of intemperance had been placed on the Irish people by this Bill without any grounds whatever. The statistics of drunkenness in England, Ireland, and Scotland showed that. In the year 1886 in Scotland, which is the highest, and which is the country where total Sunday closing prevails MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Gentleman is now exceeding the liberty of an hon. Member in discussing a measure included in the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill. The hon. Gentleman cannot go into the whole principle of the Sunday Closing Bill. That is only one Bill among a great many others dealt with by the Bill before the House. When the Bill is in Committee the remarks of the hon. Gentleman will be in Order; but he is now going into the whole question of Sunday licensing, which is not in Order. MR. J. O'CONNOR asked whether he would be in Order in pointing out that the Sunday Closing Act had failed in accomplishing the intention of its promoters? MR. SPEAKER said, that the hon. Member could not raise the principle of the Act on the second reading of the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill. The proper course would be to move to exclude the Act in Committee. MR. J, O'CONNOR said, that acting on the advice of Mr. Speaker-if the Government would name a day on which the Committee stage would be takenhe would postpone the observations which he had to make. THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH) (Strand, so as to clear the way for legislation they would propose, and which would meet all sides of the question. They held that the Bill had failed in its ob Westminster) said, the Committee stage of the Bill would be taken to-morrow. MR. SEXTON (Belfast, W.) said, there was a strong contention in Ireland that the Act, which was merely an ex-ject; but they could not have fresh perimental Act, had failed in its object. legislation until it was out of the way. An inquiry into the working of the Act was promised four years ago, and he would ask the Government whether, considering the great desire of a great many people in Ireland for an inquiry, they would not order an inquiry between this Session and next as to whether the Bill had succeeded or failed in its purpose. That would only be fulfilling a pledge given when the Bill was introtroduced, and renewed year after year -it would give great satisfaction in Ireland, and would tend to ease the passage of the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill through the House. MR. BRADLAUGH (Northampton) asked whether the Government, in view of the pledge given the Session before last, and repeated several times at the beginning of the Session, would undertake that the Employers' Liability Bill should be introduced at an early period next Session ? MR. W. H. SMITH said, that the hon. Gentleman would see at once that the Government could not part with the Act; they must continue the Act for the present; but it would be in the power of Parliament to deal with the question next Session as it thought best. With regard to the point raised by the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Bradlaugh), he (Mr. W. H. Smith) might say that the Government were fully aware of the importance of the Employers' Liability Bill. They had prepared a Bill dealing with the liability of employers, and he had no hesitation in giving the hon. Member an undertaking that the question should be further considered during the Recess, with the view of bringing forward at the earliest possible period next Session a considerable measure on the whole subject. Question put, and agreed to. Bill read a second time, and committed for To-morrow. SUPERANNUATION ACTS AMENDMENT COMMITTEE. Order for Committee read. Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."-(Mr. Jackson.) THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR) (Mauchester, È.) said, so far as he was aware, the object of the promised inquiry was to see whether the Act could be made perpetual instead of temporary and re- (Mr. Jackson, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.) newable. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Bridgeton Division of Glasgow (Sir George Trevelyan), when Chief Secretary, gave it as his opinion that the Act had been successful. The hon. Member for West Belfast (Mr. Sexton) was probably aware that Irish opinion was greatly divided on the question of Sunday closing, not to speak of English opinion. The Act had been made temporary and renewable, and having been renewed, it might be presumed that it was the opinion of the various Governments that the effect of the measure had been satisfactory. He did not himself profess to have formed an opinion on the subject, and while he promised to consider the question which the hon. Member had raised, he did not wish at that moment to give a definite pledge. MR. J. O'CONNOR said, that before the matter ended he desired to state that their object in opposing the Bill was that it should be dropped, if possible, SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL (Kirkcaldy, &c.) said, he protested against a Bill of this character being read a second time, as had been done in this case, at 4 o'clock in the morning, when very few Members were present. He was not paid to sit up at such an unearthly hour, and he had not done so. The Bill had been blocked by two sets of Members. It had been blocked by those who wanted to get more out of the Treasury, and also by others who wished to prevent the Treasury giving too much. He was induced to block it, because he was afraid that the Government intended to yield to the blockers who wanted to get too much out of the Treasury. The concessions contained in the Amendments were dangerous |