his hon. friend who had laid the matter SO fairly and impartially before the House. The hon. Member for Mid. Armagh had many interests of his own county at stake, and as a representative of the next county he was proud to be associated with the hon. Member and to take his share in protesting against this wretched political injustice and the cowardly, unprecedented action of the AttorneyGeneral in regard to the matter. favour of fair play, and by his was simply the essence of fair play conduct as the representative of the that both sides should be heard, Administration and of law and justice but in spite of this, with the assistance in Ireland he was going far to dispel the of the Attorney-General, the Bill was to idea that the present Irish Administra- be forced through the House of Commons. tion acted impartially. He hoped the He could assure the House that that Attorney-General would speak without would not be done without a strong remembering the spur that had been ap- protest on the part of those who happened plied to him. It was a very unfortunate to know how the Bill was being wirething that such an instrument was ne- pulled and gerrymandered through with cessary to bring the Government to the assistance of the Attorney-General. its feet in regard to such a monstrous When it came to getting a small Party injustice as this Bill proposed. There advantage all considerations of justice was no public necessity for the measure, appeared to go. The ques ion was one and no attempt had been made to show of disturbing an institution which had that the present trustees had carried on worked well and with advantage to the markets unsatisfactorily. On the everybody concerned for fifty years, contrary, they had done their duty well and it was being done in order to and the markets were flourishing, and achieve a wretched little Party gain. every penny derived from them was He wished to associate himself with being devoted to the welfare of the town. Hon. Members below the gangway did not appear to care what happened to the town. If the Urban Council of Armagh got the power to manage these markets and there happened to be a loss, upon whom would the loss fall? Not upon the urban council, but upon the majority of the ratepayers, who were against this scheme. It was an easy thing to say to the House of Commons, Legislate for us, and if there is a deficiency it is going to come from the very people who are objecting." No doubt those who were opposing the measure would be told that they were bigoted, but that was the usual answer to the desires of an Irish industrial town which simply wanted to be let alone. He did not think there was a single hon. Member, whatever his politics might be, who be, who would deny that the ratepayers were the people who ought to be considered in the matter. This was a question quite above Party politics, and the ratepayers who had petitioned against the Bill ought to be allowed to put their case before the Committee. What had the promoters of the Bill done? They had actually objected to the ratepayers appearing before a Committee in any shape or form. The Attorney-General for Ireland knew all about this, and yet he sat silent. For what reason did the House suppose that a majority of the dissenting ratepayers desired to appear before the Committee ? Because it VOL. CLXX. [FOURTH SERIES.] 66 FOR *THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL IRELAND (Mr. CHERRY, Liverpool, Exchange) said the hon. Member first charged him with being entirely under the control of hon. Members opposite and then with being afraid to speak upon this measure. He wished to say that all along he had intended to speak; in fact he had come down to the House with that object. The reason he had not spoken before was that he thought it was only courteous to wait until he had heard the case against the Bill before replying. Apparently the hon. Member for North Armagh thought he should reply before having heard the case. hon. Member had said a good deal about New Tipperary and Rathmines, but he had said very little about the Bill before the House. He had listened with interest to the speech of the hon. Member for Mid. Armagh, in which he put the case for the opposition to the Bill as strongly as it could be put, and the conclusion he had come to was that the House should 2 C The certainly give the Bill a Second Reading. The hon. Member said that as a rule markets should be under municipal control. MR. LONSDALE said that what he stated was that hon. Members might have sympathy with the principle of municipal authorities having control of the markets, but that Armagh might be considered an exception to that rule. *MR. CHERRY said that if the hon. Member thought the principle of municipal authorities having control of markets was a bad one he would accept his statement, but he did not think the House would agree with him. On the contrary he thought that three-fourths of the Members of the House would be ready to contend that markets ought to be under the control of the municipal authority. In 1888 a Royal Commission inquired into the question of markets, and it sat in Armagh. Evidence was taken in that county, and it was urged that the control of the markets should be transferred to local bodies. The Royal Commission, appointed moreover by a Conservative Government and not by the miserable crew now in office, in its final Report actually recommended the transfer of all markets into the hands of the local authorities. The main provision of this Bill only sought to carry into effect that recommendation. They were told that Armagh was an exception, but he had listened in vain for any explanation. But although no reason had been stated it was easy to infer that it was because Armagh District Council was composed of men of different politics from those of hon. Members opposite. That was the whole thing in a nutshell. The hon. and learned Member for Mid. Armagh had actually given notice of Motion asking that the consideration of the Bill should be postponed till after another election, in 1908, when he hoped he would succeed in getting the council Unionist. Then the hon. and learned Member and his friends would come forward and support the Bill, for the principle seemed to be that a local body which was Unionist might have control, but a local body which was Nationalist must not. He might say on behalf of the Government that they Mr. Cherry. were of opinion that local authorities, whether Unionist or Nationalist, should have control. They thought that the body now in control in Armagh represented the city of Armagh and was entitled to speak for Armagh. MR. MOORE: What about Rathmines? *MR. CHERRY said the Rathmines Bill did not propose to deal with the domestic affairs of Rathmines, but to extend the boundaries. This was a Bill dealing with Armagh City and the management of the affairs of Armagh. The representatives of Armagh were in favour of the Bill and promoted it. Why should not the House give it a Second Reading and send it to a Committee? They were told that the members of the council were a very poor lot, and that the average valuation of the Committee was much higher. He did not think that argument would carry much weight with the House. The average valuation of Members of the House of Commons was much less than that of Members of the House of Lords, and the hon. Member who advanced that argument should therefore be in favour of the abolition of the House of Commons. Another argument against the Bill was that it gave the local authority the control of the milk supply, and that the local authority could not be relied upon to exercise its powers impartially. Why not? Because it was a Nationalist body. A Conservative body could be at once allowed. It seemed to him, however, that the council made a strong case in favour of the Bill. In 1906 there was a very serious typhoid epidemic in Armagh, traceable to bad milk, and he thought it very natural that the council of Armagh, representing the poor as well as the rich, should seek to have control of the milk supply. That was one of the objects to which hon. Members opposite objected, simply and solely because the council happened to be a Nationalist body. He did not think it was necessary to detain the House any longer. thought the feeling of the House would be very strongly in favour of the Bill, and for the very reasons stated by the hon. and learned Member for Mid Armagh himself. He 730 MR. JAMES CAMPBELL (Dublin the hon. Member for Mid. Armagh. University) said he did not intend to It was peculiar in this respect, that the occupy much of the time of the House, administration of the tolls had been but only to call the attention of English for nearly a century by chosen persons Members to the moral of the debate, of the ratepayers. They had adminisand to the way in which the Government tered their trust faithfully and well and regarded the administration of affairs to the satisfaction of those attending the in Ireland. He would remind the House market. There had been no complaint that last year the urban district council or attack from any quarter. In view of Rathmines brought in a Bill which of the fact that when on the eve in the previous year passed Committees of the introduction of the Bill the both of the House of Commons and of the ratepayers learned that it was proposed House of Lords, but which fell through to take the market administration out owing to its final stage being reached just of the hands of those gentlemen and to before the adjournment, though its prin- hand it over to a fluctuating body like the ciple had been adopted and ratified in municipal council, they decided against both Houses. When the Bill was the proposal, surely it was not unreasonbrought in again last year it was op- able to ask the House to say that they posed on the First Reading, on the sole should wait until next January and let ground that it was promoted by a dis- it come before the electors, not as a trict mainly composed of Unionist elec- political question, but as a financial tors. What was the attitude on that question? It did not affect Unionist occasion of the Attorney-General, who ratepayers in a different way from had proclaimed himself such an admirer Nationalist ratepayers. It was a quesof local authorities' having administra- tion of finance affecting the rates of the tion of their own affairs? He certainly city, and in that light alone it ought did not support the Bill or speak in the to be regarded. He wished to emphasise debate. He believed the Attorney- the extraordinary and peculiar departure General went out of the House. He taken by the Irish Government to-night certainly did not vote in favour of the from the course taken twelve months Bill. His present colleague, the Chief ago, when a sanitary Bill was Secretary, actually went into the lobby introduced by a Unionist council and voted against the Bill. No objec- and they were told that the Bill tion was urged against the Bill except should not be allowed to pass on account the one he had stated. The present of that objection. On that occasion the Bill was brought in for a small matter, Irish Government and those representing namely, the acquisition of the market it entered into a conspiracy of silence, but tolls belonging to the important town testified to their views by joining hon. of Armagh. In an exceedingly able and Members below the gangway by temperate speech the hon. Member voting against the Bill. The House for Mid. Armagh, in which the was now asked to postpone this town was situated, had informed the House that the majority of the ratepayers, as the result of a vote taken on the question, had decided against the proposal to hand over the tolls to the local authority. He admitted that that was not conclusive, but on the other hand he thought the House would agree that it was a very strong argument against what he thought in ordinary cases was and ought to be the rule, namely, that everything else being equal the municipal authority should have the controlling power over such matters as markets and market tolls. But the town of Armagh was exceptional as had been pointed out so clearly and exhaustively by Bill until after the elections in January next when the ratepayers of Armagh might be trusted to determine the matter. not from the miserable point of view of Party politics, but from the necessity of the town itself, apart altogether from the effect it would have upon their own pockets. If the speculation turned out a failure it would not affect the members of the urban district council. The people who would be injured would be, not merely the ratepayers themselves, but also those who had been in the habit of frequenting the market and using it for the purpose of their business. He would have great pleasure in supporting the Amendment. MR. MOONEY (Newry) said the speech | ments on which the hon. Gentleman had of the hon. Member for North Armagh obtained his votes in the poll against the in moving the rejection of the Bill was Bill. The hon. Member for Mid. Armagh the strongest that could be made in had given building leases in the town of favour of sending the measure upstairs. Armagh which contained certain curiousThe question involved was surely one conditions about bigotry, which had exthat ought to be decided by a Committee. cited a great deal of talk. The hon. Member for North Armagh said he represented the largest ratepayers MR. LONSDALE asked whether the in the town of Armagh. He understood hon. Member made that statement within that the hon. Member represented the his own knowledge or on the authority toll commissioners of whom there were of others. only eight. Two of them had already voted for a Bill of this kind. One of them had no property at all, and had signed a trust deed for the benefit of his creditors. Another had no business in the town, and only held one debenture in the tolls. There was an overwhelming majority of the ratepayers in favour of the Bill. MR. LONSDALE said that a poll had been taken, and the result was a vote against the Bill. MR. MOONEY said that his answer to that was that the ratepayers of Armagh were represented by the urban council which had passed a unanimous resolution in favour of the Bill, and no petition had been presented on behalf of the ratepayers against it. The hon. Gentleman seemed to have forgotten that in 1880 the Unionist town council of Armagh came to the conclusion that the town council was the proper body to administer the markets. In 1882 they came to the same conclusion. The Local Government Board, in 1888, sent a Commission to inquire into the matter, and that Commission decided that the town council should have the control of the markets; and in 1904 the town council gave notice to bring in a Bill to acquire the market rights. The hon. Member had made great play of the circumstance that a poll was taken last year against the Bill. He did not wish to deny the fact; but it was a most extraordinary poll. Circulars were issued by the Unionist Association to all the out-voters asking them to vote, and in that way the voting was influenced. The circulars, which were the most extraordinary ever issued even by the Unionists, stated that if the Bill were passed the property of the Unionists in the town would be destroyed; and that the ground set apart for sports and games would be lost. Those were the state MR. MOONEY said that he could not say that the leases in question were in the hon. Member's own name, but he was the responsible party for them. MR. T. L. CORBETT asked the Deputy-Speaker whether an hon. Member who made a deliberate insinuation against another hon. Member, which insinuation the latter denied, ought not to withdraw the statement. * MR DEPUTY-SPEAKER said that there was no imputation against the hon. Member for Mid. Armagh, but the remark of the hon. Member for Newry did seem. to be a little irrelevant to the Bill. MR. MOONEY said he did not wish to reflect upon the hon. Member for Mid. Armagh, but he regarded the interruption of the hon. Member for Down as about as relevant as most of his interruptions. What they asked by this Bill was that the House should give to the Corporation of Armagh the same powers as were given to every other municipality in the country. *CAPTAIN CRAIG (Down, E.) said he rose with some reluctance to take part in the debate, but he must confess that after listening to the speeches made by the Attorney-General and the hon. Member for Newry, it was evident that the last thing they desired was to discuss a Bill of such importance on its merits. Behind the Bill and its clauses and those speeches there was a deep meaning. How those who supported the Bill reconciled their speeches with the speeches and the votes which they gave last year on a similar occasion, he did not know. The arguments against the Bill had been straight to the point, but they had been only some £2,170. If the Bill were howled down because some hon. Mem- allowed to go upstairs it would lead to bers below the gangway did not wish great expenditure, which would fall upon the truth to be known. The hon. the ratepayers or traders. He had Member for Newry had made a base calculated that the amount of money insinuation against the hon. Member for which would be necessary to pass the Bill Mid. Armagh, but it had nothing to do into law and redeem the debentures would with the Bill, and in fact, there was not be £5,000. That at 5 per cent. would a single word of truth in it. "Oh, oh." represent £250, which would have to go upon the rates, whereas the interest upon the debentures at the present time was only £115. That meant that £135 MR. MOONEY asked the DeputySpeaker whether it was in order to charge an hon. Member with making a statement in which there was not a single word of truth? * MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER said that if the hon and gallant Gentleman meant that the hon. Member for Newry was stating what he knew to be untrue he was not entitled to use the phrase and should withdraw it. a few additional would have to go upon the *CAPTAIN CRAIG said he did not intend to do anything more than to defend his hon. friend the Member for Mid. Armagh. ["Withdraw."] What he wished to say was that the hon. Member for Newry had been misinformed, but he bowed at once to the ruling of the Deputy-Speaker. Perhaps the House would allow him to say what the Bill really meant, and what would happen if the advice of the AttorneyGeneral for Ireland were taken. No one had so far suggested that the toll proprietors had been making an undue profit out of the tolls, or had been in any way unjust or had administered the property in any partisan or improper spirit. On the contrary, they appeared to have carried out their duties remarkably well, considering the modest sum represented by the debentures, 67. Question put. The House divided :-Ayes, 243; Noes, (Division List No. 35.) |