§ On the Motion that the Unlawful Oaths (Ireland) Bill be read a third time,
§ MR. ROEBUCKsaid, he would beg to ask the right hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin whether he would fix a day for a discussion on the subject which had occupied the attention of the House at an early period of the evening? He hoped the right hon. and learned Gentleman would put such a Resolution upon the paper as would enable the House to come to a distinct decision.
MR. NAPIERreplied that he must leave it to the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland to take such steps on the subject as he might think fit.
§ MR. HORSMANsaid, the right hon. and learned Gentleman had made a charge against his (Mr. Horsman's) right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General for Ireland, and the Government waited to see whether it was his intention to bring that charge before the House in a definite form. The Government had a right to expect that the right hon. and learned Gentleman would not shrink from supporting the charge he had made, but would submit a substantive Motion to the House, and so give the Government an opportunity of meeting his accusation.
§ MR. WHITESIDEsaid, he thought the discussion highly irregular, and he considered the speech of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Horsman) most unjustifiable. His right hon. and learned Friend (Mr. 709 Napier) said he was in possession of a statement with which the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland requested to be furnished, and his right hon. and learned Friend promised that that statement should be placed in the hands of the Attorney General for Ireland. The statement had been sent to the Attorney General for Ireland, and he (Mr. Whiteside) thought, when the right hon. and learned Gentleman had considered the subject matter of that statement, the onus would lie upon him of taking such course as he might think fit.
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (MR. J. D. FITZGERALD)said, he had not asked for any statement. The House had been informed that the Master of the Rolls had sent to an hon. Member of that House a statement which he (the Master of the Rolls) intended himself to read from the bench that day. He (the Attorney General) said he supposed that statement had been sent to the right hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Napier); that he understood it involved charges upon his conduct as Attorney General for Ireland; and he challenged the right hon. and learned Member to produce that statement. He never asked the right hon. and learned Member for the document. The right hon. and learned Gentleman offered him a document which he (the Attorney General) did not accept, and he repeated what he had before said—that he challenged the right hon. and learned Member, if he dared, to bring the subject under discussion. He (the Attorney General) was prepared to meet the charge, and it was the duty of the right hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Napier), as a man of honour, and as a Member of that House, who had been made the vehicle of bringing the charge before the House, to give him (the Attorney General) an opportunity of meeting and refuting it.
MR. NAPIERsaid, he conceived that he understood his duty as a man of honour and as a Member of that House. He had defended the conduct of the Master of the Rolls, and he had been furnished with a statement which he had that day received from Ireland. He had offered to place the statement in the hands of the Attorney General for Ireland, and, when the right hon, and learned Gentleman answered that statement, he (Mr. Napier) would be prepared to do his duty.
§ Bill read 3a, and passed.