SECOND READING. (Hansard, 8 August 1877)

§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKE
said, the Bill comprised several Acts, and amongst them one relating to Ireland. Many Committees had, year after year, sat and considered the Acts, and made Reports, recommending alterations; but the Government failed to act on the recommendations of those Committees, and consequently nothing was done. It was promised that the Corrupt Practices Acts should be amended in the last Session; but, as in previous years, the promise made by the Government was not kept. True, a Bill was brought in, but it was abandoned. Another Bill was brought in, but that also was not proceeded with. The House of Commons was now called upon to renew those Acts. He submitted that the Reports of the Committees should be acted upon, and he hoped that in the next Session a Bill would be brought in early to amend the Acts, and that it would be passed.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
said, in pursuance of the recommendations of the Committees, and of the promise made by the Government, he brought in a Bill to amend the Acts; but owing 639 to the pressure of other Parliamentary Business, it was felt that it could not be passed, and it was withdrawn. All he could say was, that the Government would, early in the next Session, bring in a Bill to alter and amend the Acts; and with regard to the Corrupt Practices at Elections Act, he ventured to say there was no question which called more for amendment.

§ MR. RYLANDS
said, that the Government had never put the Bill on the Paper in a position that would enable it to pass.

§ MR. CHARLES LEWIS
said, a Select Committee had sat on this Bill last year, and if the Government had paid proper respect to the Report of that and other Committees, the Acts would have been amended.

§ MR. SERJEANT SIMON
submitted that this was a subject which deserved the most serious attention of the Government. He had submitted a Motion, based almost entirely on the consideration of the constitution of the tribunal for the trial of Parliamentary elections, proposing that all Election Petitions should be tried by two, instead of one Election Judge. He hoped Her Majesty's Government would re-consider the matter with a view to the formation of a more satisfactory tribunal.

§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER
said, that the question would have to be dealt with next Session, and he hoped a measure would be brought forward which would meet with the approval of the House.

§ MR. PARNELL
said, he did not know, and he did not care, whether he should be deemed guilty of obstruction in the course he was about to take. He proposed to move, as soon as he had concluded his remarks, the Adjournment of the Debate, and he should state his reasons for doing so. They had heard no doubt of Continuance Bills for renewing bad laws and bad measures. The first example that was given was rather a notable one. In the first year of this Parliament, a Continuance Bill was brought forward by the Government for the purpose of renewing the Coercion Laws of Ireland. The Government brought it forward in the usual matter-of-fact way in which they brought forward all Coercion Bills—a matter-of-fact method which they had shown in the present case. Some hon. Members for 640 Ireland objected to the summary way in which this Bill, renewing—amongst other laws, the Coercion Laws, was sought to be passed; and they fought the Government so successfully that the Government undertook that these laws should only be renewed for one year. Unfortunately, the Government unwarned by that experience, now proposed to renew a number of bad laws for Ireland—laws that they had themselves repeatedly admitted required alteration and amendment, and which every one admitted to be out of date—in the same matter-of-fact and slipshod fashion. He would direct the attention of the House to such of the Acts as concerned Ireland. It would have been much more satisfactory if the Chief Secretary had given some information as to the intentions of the Government in regard to these Irish Acts. Proposing them for one year seemed to be an evidence of the sensibility of the Government to the fact that these Acts required amendment; if not, he should imagine that they would have continued then for a longer period than one year. He maintained that there should be some opportunity afforded of discussing these Acts. If the Irish Chief Secretary persisted in continuing from year to year a number of objectionable Acts, he must expect that a great amount of time would be wasted in discussing these Acts. Referring to the 5th and 6th of William IV., which concerned the manufactures of the North of Ireland, there were a number of differences connected with this question which required far more time to settle than the Legislature had at its disposal—matters of difficulty between employers and employed. He did not know what were the provisions of the English Acts in reference to the power of the employers, or whether a master tailor, for instance, would be able to obtain a warrant for the arrest of an employee who detained his property. He hoped if the Motion for the Adjournment of the Debate was agreed to, they would have an opportunity of looking into the bearing of the subject. Section 32 appeared to be aggressive towards the workmen, and he thought it ought not to be retained. [Laughter.] Hon. Members might laugh; but it was a matter which concerned Ireland closely. An opportunity would be afforded at some future time to set him right, if he was wrong.