take care not only that an Irish Mem- | reason why the Government should ber should be placed upon the Commit- consent to the adjournment of the detee, but that it should be left to the Irish bate. Members to say who that Member should be. MR. BIGGAR said, that he had been very much impressed with the point raised by the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Callan), that by the ordinary practice of the House with regard to Private Bill legislation, when any objection was raised in regard to Private Business, the ordinary course was to defer the consideration of the objection until a succeeding day. That practice had not been followed in this case, and he was not all certain whether they had not a right to insist upon that Rule being brought into operation now. But he thought that, on the merits of the question, irrespective of those technicalities, a good case had been made out for adjourning the debate. The Rule of the House, in reference to Bills of this nature, was founded upon a strict sense of justice-namely, that Private Bill legislation was of so peculiar a nature that such a thing as a surprise must be guarded against. Therefore, whenever the merits of a particular Bill were called in question, whatever the feeling of the House was, and notwithstanding that a large majority might be in favour of another course, the practice was to postpone the discussion. For that reason he would suggest to the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. H. H. Fowler) that he should accede to the proposal now made to postpone the Motion. It was all very well to say that the Committee of Selection would act with impartiality with regard to the selection of the names of Members to serve upon the Committee; but, at the same time, the names of the Members proposed to be nominated upon the Committee were not down upon the Paper, and the Irish Members would not have an opportunity of expressing an opinion as to the merits or demerits of any hon. Member pro MR. SMALL said, the right hon. Baronet who spoke above the Gangway (Sir John R. Mowbray) seemed to think that it was of some importance for the Committee of Selection to have the right of nominating this Committee; whereas the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Hibbert), who had just addressed the House, seemed to think that it made no difference whatever whether the Committee were appointed or not. What he complained of was the exclusion of Irish Members from Committees; and he thought it would be better to give the Committee of Selection the trouble of excluding them on every occasion, rather than that they should be cut off at one swoop. The right hon. Baronet told them that if any Irish Bill came before the Committee of Selection, he would take care that Irish Members were placed upon the Committee. It was a singular thing that English Members should be of opinion that the Irish Representatives were not to interfere at all with English Business, but that English Members had every right to interfere with Irish Business. That was the best proof which had been given for a long time of the self-satisfied way in which the English Members legislated for Ireland. He was surprised at the course which had taken by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler). He (Mr. Small) had certainly expected to find the hon. Member animated by that spirit of fair play for which he was so conspicuous when he occupied a seat below the Gangway. It might reasonably have been expected that the hon. Gentleman would have manifested the same spirit of fair play now that he had become an occupant of the Treasury Bench. After the unanimous opinion ex-posed to be placed on the Committee. pressed by the Irish Members on that side of the House, he hoped the hon. Member would no longer resist their wishes. The Secretary to the Treasury had alluded to what occurred last year; but the hon. Member himself admitted that, on that occasion, there were no Irish Bills on the Paper. In this instance Irish Bills were affected for the first time, and that was certainly a strong Mr. Hibbert For that reason he thought it would be well if the Government would give way, and save the House the trouble of dividing, which would be inevitable unless the proposal to adjourn the debate were acceded to. There would only be one day's delay, and no practical difference would be made in the time of the appointment of the Committee. He presumed that there was no Business ac tually awaiting the consideration of the Committee; and he was astonished that the Government should interpose a difficulty where there was really no controversy, and where no inconvenience would, as a matter of fact, take place. As to the argument of the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Hibbert), who said that the course taken last year met with no objection, that was no reason whatever why there should be no objection now. Last year there was no Irish Bill which could have gone before the Committee; whereas, in the present year, there was certainly one important measure, if not more, which would come under the cognizance of the Committee. MR. P. J. POWER said, that no objection was raised to the nomination of this Committee either last year or the year before; but that was because there was no Irish Bill which could be dealt with by the Committee. But even if there had been, and no objection had been raised to the appointment of the Committee, that was no reason why no objection ought to be raised now. Because the Irish Members might not have done right in one case, that formed no justification for their continuing to follow the same course now. The circumstances were altogether different from those of any previous year, because this year most important private legislation was promoted upon questions of vital interest to the Irish people; and that legislation would, in the first instance, be brought under the consideration of the Committee it was now proposed to appoint. He maintained that, under those circumstances, the Irish Members themselves were the persons entitled to say what the legislation should be; and certainly no people could be more competent to judge of the wants and wishes of the Irish people than the Irish Representatives themselves. They had been informed that Notice had been given of the intention of the hon. Gentleman opposite to make this Motion; but, if so, it was given at a period when the general body of Members were not in their places, and had no means of knowing what actually took place. All he could say was that the Irish Members knew nothing of the Notice, and the Motion itself had quite taken them by surprise. As a matter of fact, it had been sprung upon them, and, he could not help thinking, in a somewhat unfair manner. Therefore, he entirely concurred with the suggestion of his hon. Friend the Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) that the debate should be adjourned. His hon. Friend did not wish to have the question forced upon the attention of the House that day, but desired to postpone the discussion of it, in order to give the Irish Members a few days to consider the action they ought to take. Then, as to the nomination of one Committee by another, he was entirely of opinion that the principle was altogether wrong. He thought that the Committee, which was to be intrusted with most important Business, should be named directly by the House, and that the House should not delegate its functions to the Committee of Selection, or to any other Committee. Taking in view all the circumstances of the case, he was sure that Her Majesty's Government would have no hesitation in acceding to a proposition so just and fair on the face of it as that which his hon. Friend had made; otherwise the Irish Members would be compelled to prolong the discussion. MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR said, he only desired to say one or two words. Of course, he could not discuss the merits of the question on the Motion for the adjournment; and he did not know that he would personally object to the proposal itself, so far as it involved the principle of delegation. But the reason he did object to it was, that it might be made the beginning of a system of delegating the work of the House to something in the nature of Standing Committees. He certainly thought that that was a point worthy of careful consideration before it was carried out. He perceived that the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sir William Harcourt) had entered the House since the commencement of the discussion; and he (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) would submit to the consideration of the right hon. Gentleman whether it was an unreasonable request, when a proposal of this kind was made, and a suggestion was offered that a little more time for consideration should be allowed-whether it was unreasonable, on the part of hon. Members from Ireland, considering that the interests of their constituents might be Question put. The House divided:- Ayes 26; Noes List, No. very much affected by the proposal, to ask for a short adjournment of the discussion? He thought that, seeing how 238: much of principle was involved in the 40.) proposal, and how fertile it might be of further proposals in the same direction, it was only reasonable to ask for timely consideration before they subjected them-"That Standing Order 173A shall be selves to the disadvantages in which they might hereafter find themselves involved. Original Question put, and agreed to. applicable to the said Committee."- MR. HEALY said, the Irish Members really could not allow this Resolution to pass without entering another protest. He wished to point out to the Government the very extraordinary nature of the course which was being pursued. What was proposed was thisthat the House should abrogate its entire functions for the purpose of appointing a Select Committee and constituting it an Imperium in Imperio. In point of fact, the proposal was to vest à sort of Standing Committee with direct functions of the House in regard to the appointment of Select Committees. It appeared to him that such a proposal was a direct infringement upon the functions of the House, and that it took away from their control over the Private Business of the House. The question, therefore, assumed a very serious and important aspect. In the first place, he might point out that when an ordinary Select Committee was nominated, the names of all the Members of the Committee appeared on the Paper; and hon. Members had the power of challenging the name of every Member proposed to be appointed upon it. SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT said, that, as the hon. Member for the Queen's County (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) | had appealed to him, he felt bound to say a word, although he did not think he could add anything to the statements which had been already made. This was not a new question at all, but it was one with which the House was quite familiar; and therefore no object would be attained by giving further time for coming to a decision upon a question which was already well understood. The matter was all in a nutshell. The Bills affected were all Bills of a similar character, and it had been thought well to appoint a strong Committee to consider the important principles they contained, instead of having a number of separate Committees all dealing with the same questions, and, it might be, deciding in different ways and acting upon different principles. Such a course would be found to be highly inconvenient. The House had now had experience of the working of this principle of a single Committee for some years; and, on the whole, he thought everyone felt that it was the most desirable mode of dealing with the question. The right hon. Baronet the Chairman of the Committee of Selection (Sir John R. Mowbray) had already pointed out that, whether it was one Committee or a number of separate Committees, they would equally be appointed by the Committee of Selection. The only question MR. HEALY said, his objection was to consider was, whether there should that the powers proposed to be conferred be one Committee to deal with all these by the Standing Order were of such a matters upon uniform principles, instead character that they ought not to be of leaving them to be dealt with on di- intrusted to a Committee appointed by vergent principles by separate Com- another Committee. The Standing Order mittees. He had no doubt whatever provided that, in case of any Bill prothat the plan submitted to the House moted by, and conferring powers upon, was the most advantageous plan; and he a Municipal Corporation, or Local Board, could not see how delay or adjournment or Town Commissioners, or other public would add anything to the materials authority, the Committee should conthey now possessed for forming a judg-sider the provisions of the Bill in regard ment upon the matter. to police, sanitary, and other regula Mr. Arthur O'Connor MR. SPEAKER: The hon. and learned Member is not in Order. We are now discussing the question whether Standing Order 173A shall be applicable to the said Committee; and the hon. and learned Member must confine himself to that specific Question. hoped that the House, without further discussion, would not consent to place important powers in the hands of a Committee over whose proceedings they would have no control. tions. He objected to give to any Committee power to appoint another Committee, either from within or without itself, with the right of exercising the large powers which the Standing Order conferred. In his view, a Committee MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR said, which was to have the right of applying the House had now decided that this the powers given by the Standing Order Committee should be appointed. So should be a Committee which directly far the business was settled, and there sprang from the House. But this Sub- was no earthly use in discussing, even Committee, if he might so call it, would if it would be in Order, the propriety of be a Committee that would have power appointing a Committee. But this to create preliminary and technical ob- Standing Order No. 173A was already jections to the provisions of a measure applicable to every Bill that came bebefore the Bill could be referred to a fore the House which contained clauses Select Committee in the ordinary way, relating to sanitary matters or to police and before a single witness had been regulations. He should have thought, heard. In the ordinary course, a Select therefore, that the mere existence of the Committee would sit, in order to inquire Standing Order would have brought into the merits of a Private Bill, and every Bill of that description under its would hear all that both counsel and terms, whether it was referred to the witnesses had to say. He denied alto- new Committee or not. It, therefore, gether that such a right or discretionary appeared to him that this new Resolupower should be confided to a single tion was not necessary. Then, again, Committee selected by another Com- as to the wording of the Resolution mittee. Some of the persons who itself, it appeared to him to be open to would be appointed might be persons objection. It said-" That Standing to whom hon. Members, or the pro- Order 173A shall be applicable to the moters of these Bills, would naturally said Committee." Now, the Standing object; and, therefore, he thought it Order was applicable to a Bill; and, was a matter upon which the House therefore, as a matter of phraseology, should not proceed in haste. No doubt, it was incorrect to apply it to the Comit was said that the appointment of a mittee itself, instead of to the Bills resimilar Committee had been acceded to ferred to the Committee. The Standing without opposition for the last two Order was certainly drawn up with reyears; but, nevertheless, he thought ference, not to the Committee, but to the powers conferred by the Standing Bills which contained provisions of a Order were much too large to delegate certain character. Consequently, in the to a Sub-Committee, and he trusted that matter of phraseology, it was desirable the discussion which had that day been that the Resolution should be amended. originated by his hon. Friend the Mem- It was also a matter for consideration ber for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) on so im- whether it would not be advisable to portant a subject would convince the introduce some modification of the House of the necessity for some change Standing Order, so as to provide against of the system of conducting Private any possible danger in the way indiBusiness. Indeed, the question had cated by the hon. and learned Member now assumed a position almost of scan- or Monaghan (Mr. Healy). Under dal, and something ought to be done for these circumstances, he would ask the the protection of the Private Bill legis- hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary lation of the House. It was monstrous of State for the Home Department (Mr. that municipal, sanitary, and police H. H. Fowler), who represented the powers, affecting the health and welfare Government on this question, whether, of the inhabitants of every large town in regard to this Resolution at any in the Three Kingdoms, should be re- rate, the Government would not agree ferred to a Sub-Committee in the manner to some postponement, in order now proposed. For his part, he thought afford time for further consideration? they ought to go to the extent of taking If there was the danger which had another division against this extraordi- been pointed out, surely it was not obnary delegation of power. He sincerely jectionable to ask for time to consider to the matter before the House was put to the trouble of a division. re MR. H. H. FOWLER said, the Standing Order 173A was a Standing Order passed by the House in pursuance of a Report of the first Committee which sat upon the Bills which involved sanitary and police regulations. By that Standing Order Committees were quired to inquire into clauses of a certain character which were inserted in Private Bills, and to report to the House how they had dealt with such clauses. The hon. Member for the Queen's County (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) was quite right in assuming that, as a general principle, the Standing Order would apply to every Committee; and he thought that was the true construction to be placed upon it, and that there was no necessity for the insertion of these words. But last year, when the Special Committee was appointed, a doubt was raised whether the Standing Order applied to it; and in order to make assurance doubly sure, the House passed a Resolution directing that the Order should apply to the Committee, and that the Committee should make, under certain circumstances, a special Report to the House. Under these circumstances, it had been considered advisable to take the same course this year. There could be no doubt that, in the ordinary way, all of these matters would have to be inquired into by the Select Committee to which any Private Bill containing clauses affecting police and sanitary matters was referred. But it was most desirable that this Special Committee should inquire into and report upon them in the first instance. SIR JOSEPH M'KENNA said, he would suggest that the difficulty would be met by amending it so that it should read "That Standing Order 173A shall be applicable to all Bills referred to the Committee. All that was necessary was to insert the words "all Bills referred to " after the word "to." He concurred with his hon. Friend the Member for the Queen's County (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) that the Standing Order could not be applicable to the Committee, but simply to the Bills referred to it for consideration. It was only a verbal correction; but he thought it ought to be made, and he would, therefore, move it as an Amendment to the original proposal. Mr. Arthur O'Connor Amendment proposed, after the word "to, "to insert the words "all Bills referred to. "-(Sir Joseph M'Kenna.) Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted." MR. H. H. FOWLER said, that he had not the slightest objection to the words proposed to be inserted. Question put, and agreed to. Main Question, as amended, proposed, MR. SEXTON said, he wished to put a question to the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for the information of the House. As he understood the matter, at present, the Committee of Selection had power to refer individual Bills to Private Bill Committees, which Committees were bound to hear counsel and witnesses. But before the meeting of these Private Bill Committees, there was to be a Report from the Special Committee under the Standing Order. Was the Special Committee equally bound, before making their Report under the Standing Order, to hear counsel and witnesses ? MR. H. H. FOWLER: Certainly. Main Question, as amended, put, and agreed to. Ordered, That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records; Five to be the quorum. QUESTIONS. LAW AND JUSTICE (SCOTLAND)-ARREST OF JOHN MACDONALD FOR POACHING. MR. FRASER-MACKINTOSH asked the Lord Advocate, Whether his attention had been directed to the case of John Macdonald, postal runner or messenger betwixt Carr Bridge and Ariemore, in the county of Inverness, who, in the month of November 1883, in the presence of several persons on the Railway platform at Ariemore, while in charge of the mail bags, was arrested by two policemen, and conveyed a prisoner to Inverness, on a charge of being concerned in a poaching affray on the River Dulnan; whether, notwithstanding his judicial denial of the alleged offence, he was detained in strict confinement for ten days; and, whether compensation can be made to him for |