Изображения страниц
PDF
EPUB

and, unfortunately, the Vote upon which to an arrangement with all those who the Committee were engaged occupied had Notices on the Paper. The noble more than three-quarters of an hour, and Lord the Secretary to the Treasury, howprevented his right hon. Friend carrying ever, insisted upon going on with Supply out his intention. He trusted that the after a time when there was a distinct Bill would be proceeded with either at the understanding that the second Order Morning or Evening Sitting following. should be brought on, and after hon. Members had been brought down to the House at the express wish of the President of the Local Government Board. He (Mr. Heneage) had a Motion to add to the Members of the Committee, which had been accepted by his right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board, and he was told to be present at half-past 11, because Progress was to be reported in order that there might be no mistake in bringing on the Bill. He considered the Bill essentially bad, and did not care whether it came on or not; but he had entered into an engagement to expedite the discussion, as the Government had fairly met those who had objections, and he was quite prepared to go on. But they should not be asked to come down for the purpose night after night. Не would like to ask, if there was anyone in authority on the Treasury Bench, at what hour, or after what hour, would or would not the Motion be brought on at the next Sitting, or whether a subordinate occupant of the Treasury Bench would be allowed to go on with Supply to within 10 or 15 minutes of the limit of time when any Member could continue to talk and prevent the Bill coming on?

MR. A. J. BALFOUR said, the Home Secretary had been unfortunate in his two statements, in saying that his hon. Friend who opened the discussion had blocked the Bill, which he had not done, and that he (Mr. Balfour) had made a Motion in Committee causing delay and preventing this Bill from coming on. Now, he made no Motion, and he seconded none, and, as a matter of fact, the Motion to report Progress was made a few minutes after 1 o'clock. But, apart from that, the right hon. Gentleman entirely misapprehended the object of his hon. Friend in calling the attention of the House to this subject. He was not complaining of the Bill not being brought on, but of its being down night after night under the pretext of being brought on, which it never was. He desired that the Government should finally say what night this Motion should be taken, and then that the Government should take the steps they had it in their power to take to ensure its being considered on that night.

VISCOUNT FOLKESTONE said, as he had made the Motion for reporting Progress which had been referred to, he might be permitted to say that he did it with no obstructive purpose, but simply because it was a late hour-past 1 o'clock -when he thought it was high time to report Progress, and not to continue voting the money of the country at that hour. He hoped now that his hon. Friend would withdraw the Motion he had made, for if the Government really intended to go on with the Bill tomorrow-a Bill which was of great importance to agricultural constituenciesthen, perhaps, they might arrive at a satisfactory conclusion regarding a Bill which, as it stood, he could not help thinking was a very bad one.

MR. HIENEAGE said, the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary was misinformed as to his facts. The hon. Member opposite tried to report Progress in order to expedite this Bill. And when he spoke of the blocking Motions on the Paper, he seemed to be in entire ignorance of the fact that the President of the Local Government Board had come Mr. Hibbert

MR. MUNDELLA thought the hon. Gentleman could hardly be aware of what took place at a quarter to 12. The President of the Local Government Board sat by his side, and he was anxious that Progress should be reported when the hon. Member moved it shortly afterwards. But the Motion was objected to by Irish Members, and the discussion was continued beyond the half-hour, when the moment was lost for bringing on the Rivers Conservancy Bill. But there was a most anxious desire on the part of both the noble Lord (Lord Frederick Cavendish) and the President of the Local Government Board that the Bill should come on.

MR. R. N. FOWLER observed, that the Government could hardly expect to bring on the Bill at the next Evening Sitting, because there was a very important Motion down that would be likely to occupy the whole time from 9 o'clock. Therefore, if taken to-morrow

at all, the Bill must be taken at the Morning Sitting.

MR. BRODRICK did not wish to persevere; but he explained that he moved to report Progress at 22 minutes past 12, and Irish Members spoke for but a few minutes, and the Government unanimously said "No" to reporting Progress. Under the circumstances, he must say he could not compliment the right hon. Gentleman and his Colleagues or their accuracy. He begged to withdraw his Amendment.

Amendment and Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Debate further adjourned till To-morrow, at Two of the clock.

REFORMATORY INSTITUTIONS (IRE-
LAND) BILL.-[BILL 18.]
(Mr. O'Shaughnessy, Mr. Gabbett, Mr. Gray.)

SECOND READING,

Order for Second Reading read. MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, briefly, its object was to assimilate the law on the subject in Ireland to that in England. It would give power to the authorities to raise money for improving the buildings and, on security, to receive loans from the Treasury. The Bill had been considered by the Treasury, and had, so far, been approved of. Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."-(Mr. O'Shaughnessy.) Motion agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."-(Mr. Marjoribanks.) Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time, and committed for Thursday next.

WAYS AND MEANS.

CONSOLIDATED FUND (NO. 3) BILL. Resolution [June 2] reported, and agreed to: -Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. PLAYFAIR, Mr. CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, and Lord FREDERICK CAVENDISH.

MOTIONS.

19906

CUSTOMS (OUTDOOR OFFICERS AT
THE OUTPORTS).

NOMINATION OF SELECT COMMITTEE. COLONEL ALEXANDER rose to call attention to the curious manner in which the Committee was nominated. Its obof Out-door Officers at Customs Outject was to inquire into the grievances. ports, and, naturally, it would be supposed that the Members nominated would represent seaports, or boroughs, or counties touching the sea. But he found that out of the 14 names not more than three or four were those of Membors representing counties or boroughs bordering on the sea. All the rest were inland Representatives. It might be supposed that those who made the selection were utterly ignorant of geography, and, perhaps, had the impression that such a place as Horsham bordered on the sea. He was always of the opinion

Bill read a second time, and committed that a Committee should be largely comfor Thursday next.

SUMMARY JURISDICTION (PROCESS)
BILL.-[BILL 179.]

(Mr. Marjoribanks, Colonel Home, Sir Matthew
Ridley, Mr. Arthur Elliot.)

SECOND READING.

posed of Members interested in the subject of inquiry; but what interest could Horsham have in Outdoor Customs Officers? Then, again, he noticed that out of the 14 there was only one Scotch Representative. He had no objection to any particular names; but ho should oppose the nomination of the Order for Second Reading read. hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. MR. MARJORIBANKS hoped the II. II. Fowler), and move, instead, the House would consent to the second read-name of the hon. Member for Greenock ing of this Bill, which was not of a Party (Mr. Stewart). character, and would only affect the MR. SPEAKER: The hon. and galborder counties of England and Scot-lant Member is at liberty to oppose any land. It would remove inconveniences name; but if he wishes to add another much felt, and would enable processes name, he cannot do so without Notice. issued by an English Court of Summary Jurisdiction to be served in Scotland and

LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISH said, it could not be admitted that only

the more direct interest.

The interest of the officers was, of course, to have their salaries raised; but if the Committee were to consist of Representatives of this class, the interest of the taxpayer would be in danger of being overlooked.

COLONEL ALEXANDER remarked, that there were only three names of Representatives of seaport towns.

MR. NORWOOD moved that the following be nominated Members of the Committee:-Mr. Bellingham, Mr. Wilbraham Egerton, and Sir Henry Fletcher. Motion agreed to.

Motion made, and Question put, "That Mr. Henry H. Fowler be one other Member of the said Committee."

The House divided:-Ayes 38; Noes 6 Majority 32.-(Div. List, No. 236.) Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the following be Members of the Committee:-Mr. LEVESON GOWER, Mr. HENEAGE, Mr. JOHN HOLMS, Colonel MAKINS, Mr. SLAGG, Mr. STORER, Mr. WATNEY, and Mr. NORWOOD."

Motion agreed to.

MR. WARTON reminded the Speaker that he had not called over the name of the right hon. Member for Montrose (Mr. Baxter).

MR. SPEAKER: The name was not moved by the hon. Member for Hull.

Ordered, That Five be the quorum. ARTIZANS' AND LABOURERS' DWELLINGS. Ordered, That the Select Committee on Artizans' and Labourers' Dwellings do consist of Nineteen Members: Mr. COURTNEY, Sir SYDNEY WATERLOW, Sir MATTHEW RIDLEY, Mr. WILLIAM HOLMS, Mr. BRODRICK, Mr. TORRENS, Sir HENRY HOLLAND, Mr. BRYCE, Sir JAMES M'GAREL HOGG, Mr. CROPPER, Viscount EMLYN, Mr. FRANCIS BUXTON, Mr. ARTHUR BALFOUR, Mr. HASTINGS, Mr. RANKIN, Mr. BRAND, Mr. LEAMY, The O'DONOGHUE, and Sir RICHARD CROSS-Power to send for persons, papers, and records; Five to be the quorum.--(Sir Richard Cross.)

[blocks in formation]
[blocks in formation]

CONSIDERATION.

Order for Consideration read.
Bill, as amended, considered.

MR. CHEETHAM said, that in rising to move the omission of Sub-section Ď of Clause 4 of the Bill which sanctioned the construction of a branch of this Railway, he could only express his regret that the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Bryce), who had also given Notice of his intention to move the omission of the sub-section, was not in his place. It was thought that the Bill would be amended in certain particulars, and a prospect was held out that modifications would be made to meet some of the objections which had been urged. He ventured to think that a simple statement of the facts of the case would show at once how reasonable the opposition was that was now entertained to this part of the Bill. Great and Little Bookham Commons formed one continuous open space of about 400 acres, and were of great beauty, being well wooded, and containing several sheets of water. The proposed railway passed through the centre of the commons for a distance of nearly a mile, and the injury to these commons might be imagined from the results of similar encroachments on

the commons of Wandsworth, Barnes, | of the popular rights-the right hon. and Mitcham. It was needless, in these and hon. Gentlemen who now occupied days, to speak of the value and impor- the Treasury Bench would display tance of protecting and preserving open a like regard for the maintenance of spaces of this kind for recreation grounds. those rights. It was not necessary On that point there could be no higher that he should apologize for the course authority than the right hon. Gentleman he had taken in bringing the matter the late Home Secretary (Sir R. Asshe- under the notice of the House. He did ton Cross). In his speech in introducing so mainly because the rights of the the Commons Act of 1876, the right public had found no voice before the hon. Gentleman dwelt upon the sanctity Select Committee upstairs, and because of the commons. He observed— he felt that the House was under an obligation to exercise a full supervision over every measure of this kind that was brought down from a Committee. Even from the standpoint of the promoters of the Bill themselves it could not

"That there were a great number, such as the commons of Surrey, which no one would think of inclosing."-- [3 Hansard, cexxvii. 192.] And again, on the second reading of the Bill, he spoke as follows:

"The other object of the Bill was to prevent, as far as possible, the inclosure of commons, and to give facilities for keeping them open for the benefit of the people; so that not only those having rights in those commons should enjoy them, but that the people enjoying the use they had hitherto had of these commons might have them improved, drained, and levelled for their enjoyment. The House would remember the old rhyme

The law condemns the man and woman,

Who steal the goose from off the common

But does not punish what's far worse, To steal the common from the goose.' He had no intention of stealing a common from any goose, but to give every facility for the continued user by the poor labourer, the artizan, and the dweller in large towns of that beautiful scenery which they had hitherto enjoyed, but in an improved state."--[Ibid., 543.] Again, in answer to a deputation of agricultural labourers on the subject of the Bill, the right hon. Gentleman was reported to have said—

"That he believed the practical effect of the Bill would be to put a stop to the inclosures; in fact, it was drawn with that object."

be urged that any great injury would be done to the Railway Company by asking for the abandonment of this part of the scheme. It simply authorized the construction of a branch line, which might very easily, without detriment to the interests of the Railway Company, be allowed to stand over. There could be no doubt that a little more consideration would enable the promoters so to plan their line as to prevent this spoliation of one of the most lovely of the suburban commons; and he begged, therefore, to move the omission of subsection D of Clause 1.

Amendment proposed, in page 9, line 14, to leave out "sub-section D of Clause 4."-(Mr. Cheetham.)

Question proposed, "That sub-section D of Clause 4 stand part of the Bill."

MR. TILLETT was very sorry that the hon. Member who presided over the Committee was not in his place. The Committee sat for a long time, and gave The encroachments of the Railway Com- the fullest consideration to all the evipanies had done much to injure the com-dence that was brought before them. mons of the country, and it was to be regretted that of all the interests that were represented before the Committee which sat upon this Bill that of the hundreds of thousands of artizans of the Metropolis whom it so nearly concerned should alone have been left without direct or adequate representation. He certainly thought, after the words uttered by the right hon. Gentleman the late Home Secretary, that he might venture to expect the support of hon. Members who sat on the opposite side of the House. He would venture also to hope that those who succeeded the late Government as the guardians

The Chairman was himself very much interested in the question of the preservation of commons, and was exceedingly anxious for their protection, and jealous of any step that might interfere with their enjoyment by the public. He was also at great pains in visiting and going over every part of the country likely to be affected by the proposed line; so that the Committee had the advantage of consulting with his hon. Friend, and hearing the evidence that was brought forward. In regard to the commons now in question, it must be understood that the proposed railway did not affect any very beautiful or

attractive portion of the land. One part of the common was very beautiful; another part was extremely useful; but in the middle there was a swamp, the land lying low and being very wet, unprofitable, and, at times, impassable. It was through that particular part that it was proposed to construct this line of railway, and a clause was placed before the Committee by the promoters of the Bill, which placed the construction of the railway, and all proceedings in reference to it, so far as regarded this common, under the complete direction of the Secretary of State for the Home Department. That clause was carefully considered before it was adopted, and he believed it was as strong a clause as could possibly be worded. Although only a small piece of line, the proposed branch formed the connecting link between the new South Western line and Leatherhead and Epsom, and, indeed, formed a most important part of the scheme. The Committee had also before them the question of Wimbledon Common; and more than half the labours of the Committee were devoted to the consideration of the protection of these common lands. They were as anxious as any Members of that House could be that the commons should be protected in every possible way. In regard to Wimbledon Common, the hon. Member for Mid Surrey (Sir Henry Peek) attended the Committee, and told them he was perfectly satisfied with the arrangements which had been made for the protection of that common, and for those who might go upon it. The objection of the hon. Member for North Derbyshire (Mr. Cheetham) had reference to the commons of Great and Little Bookham. In regard to those commons, the Committee had before them all who were interested in their preservation; and it was represented that all, or nearly all, were in favour of the proposed line, and had made representations to that effect to the Home Secretary. Further, he might inform the House that the Inclosure Commissioners, in their Report, did not condemn the line. They suggested that there might possibly be an improvement in regard to it; but it was pointed out, in confirmation of what he had said, that the line passed through an unserviceable part of the common, and that it did so in the way most conducive to the public interests. He would remind

Mr. Tillett

the House that before the Bill was read a second time there was a discussion upon this part of the scheme; and now that the Bill had come down from the Committee, if they were to enter upon a discussion of every sub-section or part of a clause contained in it, he confessed that he could not see an end to the questions that might arise upon every Bill that might be sent up to a Select Committee. The Business of the House was sufficiently overcharged already — indeed, alarmingly overcharged with pressure upon Imperial questions; and if Select Committees, sitting under a most experienced Chairman, and one who had always taken the deepest interest in the preservation of commons-such as the hon. Member for South Derbyshire (Mr. Evans)-if, after sitting for nearly three weeks, patiently hearing all the evidence tendered to them, they were then to have their decision overruled by hon. Members who had had no opportunity of hearing the evidence or the arguments, or of having the able assistance and advice of the Committee-then, he said, a blow would be struck at the proceedings of Committees which would seriously impair their efficiency and responsibility in future.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT said, he rose, as he did the other day on a somewhat similar question affecting a Private Bill, to appeal to the House not to continue the present discussion. The Government had fixed a Morning Sitting, in all good faith that an opportunity would be afforded for making progress with the Public Business of the country; but if they were to get into the habit of re-discussing Private Bills in the House after they had been settled and determined by a very competent Committee upstairs-and nobody would say that this was not a very competent Committee

it was impossible to say what injury and delay would be occasioned to matters of Imperial importance. This was the second discussion they had had upon this Bill; and, without sinning against the Rule he asked the House to adopt, he called upon the House to set its face against the re-discussion of Private Bills. of this kind, and to support the Committee in the decision which, after three weeks' patient investigation, they had arrived at.

An hon. MEMBER said, that, as a Member of the Committee, he wished

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »