SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE, (IRELAND) (re-committed) BILL— [BILL 184.] (Hansard, 21 July 1877)

THE CHAIRMAN
called upon the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar) to move the Amendment which stood in his name.

§ MR. RICHARD SMYTH
moved that Progress be reported.

THE CHAIRMAN
intimated that he had already called upon the hon. Member for Cavan.

§ MR. BIGGAR
moved, as an Amendment, in page 60, to leave out Schedule 15.

§ MR. RICHARD SMYTH
again rose, and moved that Progress be reported. He was very unwilling to do anything to impede the Government in the prosecution of a legitimate object, but he thought the House had been taken by surprise, and if there was one thing which the House disliked more than another, it was being taken by surprise. He himself, with many other hon. Members, had left the House last night before the Adjournment, intending to spend to-day elsewhere than at West- 1631 minster. They had believed that the House would be adjourned until Monday in the usual way, and were surprised to learn that morning that a Saturday Sitting had been determined on. He did not pretend to know what had occurred in the House after he had left; but so far as he could make out from the public newspapers, no sufficient reason had been assigned by the Government for a Saturday Sitting. He found that the present Government had been encroaching on Saturdays and days appropriated to private Members far more than their Predecessors had done. In 1869, at the very end of the Session, there were two Saturday Sittings to get through pressing Business, and the House of Lords also sat; and it might be fairly assumed that when the House of Lords felt it incumbent on them to hold a Saturday Sitting, there was very pressing Business to be transacted. In 1870 there was only one Sitting on Saturday, and that occurred on the 6th of August, and in 1871 there were three, one on the 5th and the others on the 12th and 19th of August. Towards the end of 1872 there was one, and only one Saturday Sitting in the month of August. In 1873 there was only one in the same month; but in 1874 they found the Government asking the House to sit on a Saturday on the 25th July and again on the 1st August. In 1875 they asked the House to sit on Saturday in April or May to aid in carrying the Coercion Bill. There was a Saturday Sitting held on the 31st July and another on the 7th August. Last year there was a Saturday Sitting on the 29th July, another on August 5th, and another on August 12th, on which day the Lords also sat. Now, he did not think that the Bill which was now under consideration was of that pressing importance that it was incumbent on the House to meet at an extraordinary time for the purpose of passing it through. He did not know anyone in Ireland who wanted the Bill except the lawyers, and he did not believe that it was calculated to do any good to the country. He should like to call attention to a circumstance which occurred yesterday. They found the Government yesterday proposing to give up a whole Government day for the purpose of discussing a Motion brought forward by a private Member. He did not com- 1632 plain of the Government doing that; but it did seem to him an extraordinary thing that the hon. and gallant Member for West Sussex (Sir Walter Barttelot) should have obtained a Government day for his Motion to rescind the Resolution passed against the Government on the subject of the appointment of Mr. Pigott to the Controllership of the Stationery Department, when the hon. Member for Hackney (Mr. J. Holms) did not receive a day for his Motion on the same subject. He contended that the Motion of the hon. Member for Hackney was of equal importance to that of the hon. and gallant Member for West Sussex. Under these circumstances, if the Government had a whole day to place at the disposal of a private Member, he did not see why hon. Members should be brought down to that House on a Saturday morning at 12 o'clock to consider Amendments on the Paper to the Supreme Court of Judicature (Ireland) Bill. So far as he knew, the people of Ireland did not care about that Bill. No one wanted it, and that hon. Members should be brought down at such a season as this to discuss that which was merely a measure to ticket Irish Judges by new names was altogether an unprecedented circumstance.

§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT
thought his hon. Friend the Member for Londonderry (Mr. R. Smyth) had explained why he had made his Motion, when he said that he was not present in the House at the time of the Adjournment that morning. He (Sir William Harcourt) was sure that if the hon. Member had known the circumstances of the case, he was the last man who would have taken a course which was likely to bring discredit on the House in the opinion of the country. What happened that morning? He hoped he should describe it accurately, and give no offence to anyone, but there was a Bill which had arrived at its last stage, or which, at any rate, at what was believed to be very nearly its last stage. There were a few Amendments to be proposed, but they were not of a serious character, 1633 and among them the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar) had some Amendments which could have been disposed of in a brief period. It was understood at the Morning Sitting yesterday—he did not know whether this was a misapprehension, but it was his understanding—that there was no objection taken to the Bill being finished at the Evening Sitting, consequently, the Government proposed that the House should go on with it after the discussion on the Motion with reference to the release of the Fenian prisoners. When the Bill was called on, the hon. Member for Cavan declined to proceed with his Amendment. After some discussion of rather a warm character, on a division being taken, it appeared there were 112 Members desiring to go on with the Bill, and only 7, or 9 with the Tellers, desiring that the Bill should not be proceeded with. He confessed to a regret that these 9 Members should have thought it necessary to persist in the opposition; but, however, the right hon. Gentleman opposite (the Chancellor of the Exchequer), not desiring to embark in one of these contests which were never to the advantage of the House, and seeing that the main objection of these 9 Gentleman to proceed further with the Bill was, that a Bill of this important character should not be discussed at a late hour—[Mr. PARNELL: That the Amendments were of such a character.] Well, but the Amendments were part of the Bill, and it having been urged that the Bill was of such an important character that it could not be discussed at that late hour, the Chancellor of the Exchequer made a perfectly fair offer to the hon. Gentlemen who were opposed to going on that he would not insist upon proceeding, and would, instead, have a Morning Sitting to-day. No doubt hon. Gentlemen had been brought down to the House under very great inconvenience; but that inconvenience had been imposed upon them by the hon. Gentlemen who opposed the progress of the Bill last evening. Beyond that the presence of so many was a testimony that they—no matter at what inconvenience—were desirous to further the progress of Public Business. The two hon. Members who had rendered themselves most conspicuous in their opposition to the Bill early that morning, said the offer 1634 was a fair one, and they accepted it. He (Sir William Harcourt) had heard both hon. Members say that, and he could not believe they would offer any further obstruction when they had been met on the very point they desired. Well, if his hon. Friend (Mr. E. Smyth) had been acquainted with these circumstances, he would not have made his Motion, and it was to be hoped that he would see his mistake and withdraw it.

§ MR. CALLAN
regretted that the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. E. Smyth) was not present when the Adjournment occurred that morning, because, if he had been in his place, he would have received an elaborate lecture on demeanour, and conduct, and vulgarian atrocities from the accomplished Member for Dundee (Mr. E. Jenkins). He hoped the hon. Member would not object to a Saturday Sitting, notwithstanding that it put the Irish Members to serious inconvenience, and that he would not vent his displeasure on the Government for its treatment of his Irish Sunday Closing Bill. He hoped the Motion would be withdrawn, and the hon. Member for Dundee and others would apply themselves to the subject before the House, and not to the administration of lectures, which they were neither of them qualified to give with any effect.

§ MR. BIGGAR
said, he wished to correct one or two observations of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Oxford (Sir William Harcourt). The hon. and learned Member had stated that it was understood at the Morning Sitting yesterday that the Committee on the Bill was to be taken after the discussion on the Motion for the release of the Fenian prisoners. Well, he (Mr. Biggar) was in the House at the time; but he heard nothing of the sort. It might have been understood that the Bill would be proceeded with, if the other matters were finished at a reasonable time; but that was not the case, as the discussion which preceded the Bill had lasted till 1 o'clock. That, he maintained, was not a proper time at which the Business of the House of an important character should have been proceeded with. But this Bill was not really the Business of the House, for it was simply a lawyer's job. Lawyers were very fond of jobs. He had known of many they had performed. He made this statement now 1635 in the face of the reporters—that nobody in Ireland wanted this Bill but the lawyers. He had asserted that last night when reporters were not present, and he now repeated it when the representatives of the Press were in their places, so that there might be no misapprehension on the point. The Government that morning, before the Adjournment, proposed a certain course, and when their proposition was made after what had occurred, he did not feel disposed to fight any longer; but to show that he was not anxious to proceed with the Bill, the first thing he did when the Speaker took the Chair that day, was to move that the House be counted. He was not disposed to go on with that Coercion Bill — it was a Coercion Bill — and his experience had been that the only occasions when Government held Sittings on Saturdays were, when there were Coercion Bills to be passed against Ireland. This was a Coercion Bill, because it was mainly to give power to the Lord Chancellor to raise lawyers' fees. He thought that unless the Government could show some reason why the Bill should be proceeded with, hon. Members should vote for the Motion of the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. R. Smyth). Reference had been made to the Irish Sunday Closing Bill; but a Saturday Sitting for that Bill was a different thing; because that measure was supported by three-fifths of the Irish Members, while this Bill had only the support of the lawyers. He recommended the Government to accede to a proposition to withdraw the Bill for that Session, it would be only the addition of one to many Bills which would have to be so withdrawn. If the Bill was gone on with, it would only result in its being lost altogether; or else it would be passed in a form not beneficial to the country. As the measure stood, it was a most unreasonable one, and some of the clauses were two pages long, and how the deuce—[Cries of "Order, order!" and "Chair!"]

THE CHAIRMAN
rose to Order, and remarked that such expressions were unbecoming in the House of Commons.

§ MR. BIGGAR
said, he begged to apologize. If the answers he received to the Amendments he moved in Committee were not satisfactory, he should amend his suggestions to make them acceptable, and bring them up again on 1636 Report. He should feel it incumbent on him to raise certain questions on the Report, as the measure perpetuated a vicious system, and gave the Chief Justices power to select the employés they would have in the Courts. Hon. Members were told that the measure would lessen expenses; but that was simply talk, for the expenses would be increased rather than diminished.

§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. GIBSON)
said, he had several times before heard remarks similar to those which had fallen from the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar), with respect to the nature of the Bill, and he would only say with regard to those remarks that he failed to recognize the objections which had been made. This was a Bill calculated, if carried into law, to work out the wants of the country if looked at in a fair point of view. He had endeavoured to give such explanations as were necessary when its different clauses came up, and if the hon. Member wished to put other points before the House he would have an ample opportunity of doing so on the Report. If the hon. Member at that stage of the Bill could induce the Committee to believe that the explanations he (the Attorney General for Ireland) had given were unsatisfactory, the necessary alterations could be made in the Bill. The hon. and learned Member for the City of Oxford (Sir William Harcourt) had given a perfectly accurate explanation of how the Bill had come on to-day. The only objection to proceed last night and finish the Bill was the lateness of the hour, and what remained now to be done might be got through in half-an-hour. And that was why the Sitting was fixed for to-day. The hon. Member opposite (Mr. R. Smyth) had said that he and others had been taken by surprise; but he (the Attorney General for Ireland) took it that there could not be much surprise about the matter. Such an Assembly as he saw before him on Saturday showed that there could not be much surprise. It was announced early that morning that there would be a Sitting to-day, and that was assented to by the hon. Member for Cavan. [Mr. BIGGAR: No, no!] At all events the hon. Member did not express any dissent, so far as he could gather. No one but the hon. Member for Londonderry 1637 had expressed the slightest unwillingness to proceed with the Bill. They had all come down at considerable inconvenience, and they were now asked to put themselves to the further inconvenience of going away without doing anything. After the sacrifice of the little leisure which otherwise hon. Members would have had, such conduct was not reasonable, and he should have thought the hon. Member for Londonderry would have satisfied himself by giving statistics, and would not think it necessary to press his Motion. He did not see anything that was to prevent them from finishing the Committee by 1 o'clock.

§ MR. SHAW
protested against the assertion which had been made by the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar) to the effect that the Bill was merely a "lawyer's job." Indeed, he had heard from the highest authorities that the measure was not at all a popular one in the Four Courts, and anyone who obstructed it was only carrying out the wishes of those engaged in the Courts. He also knew the opinions of some of the business men who were competent to form opinions on the subject, and he could assure the House that it was believed that the measure would have the effect of simplifying the procedure in the Courts, and that it would bring about assimilation in the law of Ireland to that of England, which would be a great advantage. The Bill depended in a great measure on the County Officers and Courts Bill; in fact, each depended on the other, therefore those who obstructed the Judicature Bill were equally obstructing the County Officers Bill. He hoped the Motion to report Progress would be withdrawn.

§ MR. WHITWELL
said, if there was anything he had learnt which had been of great advantage to him since he had been in the House of Commons, it was the benefit of acquiescing in and carrying out one's part in an honourable understanding. He had himself given way on occasions when he wished to take a certain course under circumstances somewhat similar to the present. They knew there was an honourable understanding last night—the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell) assenting, and the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar) not opposing—that they should be allowed to proceed with the Bill to-day. He hoped, therefore, the 1638 hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. B. Smyth) would not press his Motion. They had all come down to the House that day with some inconvenience to themselves. He, with many hon. Gentlemen, had had to sacrifice an object which he had very much in view, and he trusted that the little Business they had to conduct would be entered upon at once.

§ MR. FAWCETT
said, he did not wish to say anything which might lead to a repetition of what occurred last night, and he would appeal to his hon. Friend the Member for Londonderry (Mr. E. Smyth) to withdraw his Motion. Nothing could be more fair, decent, and courteous than the statement the Chancellor of the Exchequer made early this morning, after the feud had gone on—of which he would only say that the more it was thought about the more it was to be regretted. The right hon. Gentleman made a proposal. He said he understood that the hon. Members for Meath and Cavan objected, in consequence of the lateness of the hour, to go on with the Bill, and therefore he proposed that the House should sit to consider the Bill at 12 o'clock this day. It would have been competent then, when the proposal was made, for either of the hon. Members to have objected to the proposal; but neither of them did so, the hon. Member for Meath, in fact, expressed himself as being perfectly satisfied with the arrangement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the hon. Member for Cavan, who had acted with him throughout the evening, and who was sitting by his side, did not make the slightest objection. Therefore, it must be taken that silence gave consent. The hon. Member for Limerick County (Mr. O'Sullivan), who, he believed, was now in his place, had taken part in the discussion of last night, and he afterwards came over to him (Mr. Fawcett) and said that the arrangement proposed by the Government was perfectly satisfactory. Under these circumstances, there being no opposition last night to the proposition to proceed with the Bill that day, he thought the hon. Member for Londonderry would not think it reasonable that the Committee should refrain from proceeding with the Bill, having met for that purpose.

§ MR. RICHARD SMYTH
said, the explanation which had been given had 1639 in some measure removed the false impression that he had formed of the proceedings and understanding come to last night, and, therefore, he would withdraw his Motion. He had been under the impression that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had appointed a Saturday Sitting for the purpose of, in an indirect way, punishing the hon. Members for Cavan and Meath on account of their persistence in opposing the Bill. He thought that if the Chancellor of the Exchequer wished to intimidate the hon. Member for Cavan by harassing the House of Commons he was very much mistaken. He understood now, however, that the hon. Member for Cavan had made himself to some extent a party to the arrangement which was arrived at, and he would not hold out to the hon. Member the temptation to relieve himself from any implied obligation under which his silence placed him.

§ MR. BIGGAR
denied the propriety of the assumption that because he did not say anything in answer to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, therefore he assented to the arrangement proposed. He did not assent to it. He simply allowed the decision of the House to be taken without a division. The hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. R. Smyth) had simply struck the right nail on the head, when he said that the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed the Saturday Sitting on purpose to annoy him (Mr. Biggar). [Laughter.] There was no doubt about that, and he would tell the hon. Member why. This proposal was not made until after an hour had been spent in the discussion of the Question, whether or not Progress should be reported. It was only after the House had divided on the Motion for reporting Progress, and another Motion had been made that the Chairman leave the Chair, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer suggested a Saturday Sitting. If he had made the suggestion at 1 o'clock, there would be some soundness in the argument that this Sitting was the result of an arrangement. But, as a matter of fact, he did nothing of the sort. The Chancellor of the Exchequer always spoke civilly; but he had an extraordinary propensity for trying to carry his point. On that occasion he had succeeded in carrying his point; but it was only after he found that he 1640 was unable to get the Bill finished at yesterday's Sitting.

§ MR. PARNELL
said, he was glad that discussion had taken place when the reporters were present and able to record the proceedings. Last night, when the Chancellor of the Exchequer attempted to force the House to go on with the Bill, the reporters were not able to report the proceedings. He regretted the right hon. Gentleman was not now in his place. He could bring them all down to the House, but he could not make it convenient to come himself. He had that morning refused to accept the proposition of the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar), that the Amendments should be postponed to a future day. This proposition was a perfectly reasonable one, while the action of the Government was most unreasonable. With regard to the charges of obstruction it had been said that an attempt was being made to stop the Business of the House, and he felt inclined to think when he heard such things, that hon. Gentlemen who said them were not answerable for their actions or their words, because, if they had taken the slightest trouble to look into the causes and facts that led to obstructions, they would see that if anyone wanted to obstruct the Business of the House it would be possible to do so in such a way as to prevent the transaction of all Business. He wished to say, publicly and deliberately, that he had never willingly obstructed any Business of the House. He never tried to obstruct the proper performance of Business, and he did not see that it would ever be necessary for him to do it. It was quite possible, however, that the Irish people might, at some time or other, come to consider that as long as Irish measures were obstructed in the present manner by Englishmen, who came down, and, by physical force, without listening to arguments, voted down the Amendments which were brought forward—their Representatives should deliberately obstruct English Business, and adopt a policy of retaliation. He did not give his opinion as to whether that would be a right or a wrong policy; but he felt sure that if the Irish people were determined on such a course, they would not be so without sound and proper reason, and under those circumstances he should not hesitate to carry out their recom- 1641 mendations. He had not obstructed in the past, and he certainly should not do so in the future, unless he were instructed by his constituents. Now, as to the Bill, the hon. Member for Cavan had called it a "lawyer's job," and he (Mr. Parnell) reiterated it. It was known that negotiations had been going on between the Governments and the lawyers with regard to the measure. The Bill had been altered in several material points since last Session; still, he did not speak from his own observation, but from that of gentlemen who had studied the case far better than he had done, when he said that the measure was not at all requisite. He had asked the Government in the past, whether they intended to waste any more time over the Bill, and he would take this opportunity of again asking whether they intended to do so? If the Government persevered with it, what would be the result? And he asked this in the interest of the Public Business of that House. It was indispensable that numerous Amendments, far more numerous than those which had been proposed by the Committee, should be moved on the Report, and he therefore could not see that there was any possibility of the measure passing into law without keeping them engaged much longer than the House would care about. He had been carefully looking over the Bill since it had got into Committee, and he saw it would involve the wasting of a considerable amount of time to press it on.

§ MR. MELDON
thought the course taken at the last Sitting, when a small minority of 7 hon. Members voted against the large body of Irish Members upon a matter of business purely affecting Ireland, was obstructive not only to English, but to Irish Business. But for their obstruction considerable progress might have been made with the Bill, as the only point before the Committee affected practice and procedure, and not principle.

§ MR. M'CARTHY DOWNING
, while admitting that every hon. Member was entitled to express his views at any time and on any subject, was of opinion that a few of the Irish Members were attempting to obstruct Irish Business. Such a course of procedure could be best described as anything but patriotism. He totally denied that the Bill was merely a lawyer's Bill, and that it was not desired by the Irish people, because 1642 a measure of this kind had long been sought for in Ireland.

§ MR. O'DONNELL
said, he looked upon the fact of the Government holding a Morning Sitting as a symptom that they were coming round to the views held by the Irish Members on the subject of daylight legislation. At the same time, he thought the Government themselves were to blame for the proceedings of the day. He held that every effort which had been made the night before by the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell) had been interrupted, and with all due respect for the courage of hon. Gentlemen opposite, he did not think that such efforts would have been made at an earlier period of that Sitting. He was of opinion that the Government would be consulting the convenience of the House generally by not proceeding further with such discussions as the one which was then going on on a Saturday, and especially as they had now arrived at such a point in the discussion that there was no telling how long it might last. If they had got to such a point in one hour, where would they get in another? Under those circumstances he was ready to waive his predilections in favour of daylight legislation for the time, and hoped the Government would postpone proceeding with the Bill until Monday.

§ MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY
thought that as there were only a few technical objections to be disposed of, it would be better for the Committee to at once proceed with the measure. He had to express his regret that the matter had not been concluded the night before. It had been said by some hon. Members that the Bill was not popular, but he asked what Law Bill had ever been popular? With regard to the remark that the Bill was intended to increase costs, the hon. Member for Cork County had attempted to introduce an Amendment for that purpose, but the attempt was defeated. Therefore, the danger feared by the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar) did not now exist. He must emphatically deny that the Bill was a lawyer's Bill. It was a most important measure, and would do much to remove legal abuses in Ireland. He hoped there would be no further obstruction to its progress by a section of the Irish Members.

§ MR. CALLAN
objected to hon. Members who had voted with the minority 1643 being pilloried, and held forth as obstructives. He was anxious to see the Bill passed, and invited the hon. and learned Members for Kildare and Cork County, who were the real obstructives, to follow the example of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland, and discuss the Bill with tact and temper, or remain silent. He had only voted against it on the division as recording his protest against language used in the debate against certain Irish Members, and which he thought was most unseemly.

§ MR. PARNELL
said, the majority of last night was certainly not an overwhelming majority of Irish Members, since it included only 13 as against 9. If the course adopted by the Chancellor of the Exchequer last night was to punish his hon. Friend the Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar) and himself the right hon. Gentleman was very much mistaken. The manner and temper of the speech of the hon. and learned Member for the City of Oxford showed that he thought they ought to be punished.

§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT
submitted to the Chairman, whether it was competent for any hon. Member to misrepresent what another hon. Gentleman had said?

THE CHAIRMAN
said, it did not appear to him that the hon. Member for Meath had intentionally misrepresented the hon. and learned Member.

§ MR. PARNELL
had expressly guarded himself against repeating the very words of the hon. and learned Member, because he had not taken them down.

§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER
said, he thought it was due to the House that he should explain why his right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary and himself were not present when the House met at 12 o'clock. It was this—they were obliged to attend a Cabinet Council at 11 o'clock, which had only been summoned that day, and which it was important and necessary they should attend. Under all the circumstances, they saw no difficulty in absenting themselves from the discussion of what remained of the Irish Judicature Bill, and for this reason, that as the Amendments were of a purely legal character the discussions would necessarily be of a legal character, and they were matters which the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland would 1644 be in his place to explain. It did not appear that by the absence of himself or the Chief Secretary any inconvenience would arise; and he must say that he was surprised to find that any difficulty had been raised as to proceeding with the questions at issue. He might remind the House of what took place yesterday. The Bill was fully discussed at the Morning Sitting up to within a short period of its completion, and then it was understood it would be taken up at the Evening Sitting. It was then objected that there was not time to proceed with it, and there appeared to be a disposition on the part of everyone that the Bill should be proceeded with, and finished at a Morning Sitting today. He believed that the course pursued was one calculated to meet the convenience of all parties, and he was hardly prepared for the objection which had now been raised. The hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell) must see that there had been every disposition on the part of the Government to deal with the matter in a fair and impartial spirit, and he trusted the Committee would now proceed with the special question before the House.

§ MR. BIGGAR
said, it had been said that he had something to do with the obstruction last night, but all he had done was to report Progress. He did not make his Motion until 1 o'clock, and the Government not seeing their way to assent to it, a discussion arose which lasted an hour before a division took place, and then another Member moved that the Chairman do now leave the Chair. He had nothing whatever to do with that Motion, and did not want to be blamed for it.

§ MR. BUTT
said, he rose with great reluctance and feelings of humiliation to take part in that miserable discussion. In all his experience he had never known a greater squandering of the public time. So far they had been discussing, as if it was a measure of the utmost importance, what the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar) said last night at one part of the evening, and what the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell) said at another period, and what somebody else had said at some other. He did not rise, however, to speak upon subjects which he was afraid he would speak too strongly upon, but he simply rose to explain his own position with 1645 reference to the Bill. He disliked this Bill, and he also disliked the English Bill; indeed, he had obstructed them both, for there was a legitimate as well as an illegitimate method of obstruction, and he believed he was the means of preventing the passage of the Bill for one year. He believed, however, that as the English Bill had passed, something like it must also pass for Ireland, because it was a natural consequence. He was prepared, therefore, to acquiesce in the inevitable, and beyond that he had found a strong feeling in Ireland that in order to bring about a settled state of affairs the subject should be dealt with. It was merely a question of time, and he was therefore prepared to assist in passing a Bill which would set the question at rest.

§ MR. PARNELL
quite agreed that it would ultimately be necessary to pass a Bill relating to the Irish Judicature, but that was no reason why they should allow this Bill to go through without full and proper discussion, and without endeavouring to insert those Amendments which they considered to be necessary and proper. All that had been said tended to show that that Parliament was incapable of managing Irish affairs, or of legislating for the Irish people. The present Bill was brought forward at a very late period of the Session, and when there was apparently no chance of passing it, if a proper discussion upon it took place; but were they for that reason to say that they should refrain from attempting to make Amendments which they believed to be requisite in a measure which was full of abuses and anomalies. He did not believe the interests of Ireland would be injured if the Bill were stopped.

§ MR. RICHARD SMYTH
wished to explain that he had merely moved to report Progress under what he supposed to be the circumstances of last night, in order to obtain an explanation from the Government; but since, having offered to withdraw, he was in no way responsible for what had taken place afterwards.

§ MR. E. JENKINS
said, hon. Members might speak approvingly of the discussion at that time; but the question which suggested itself was, what the people of Ireland would think of it? It was because these reports were circulated amongst a large number of igno- 1646 rant people in Ireland unanswered, that they were likely to cause the very feeling which the House desired to suppress, and which they all felt did not add to the dignity of the Assembly. He wished to show what motives bad actuated the hon. Member for Meath.

THE CHAIRMAN
pointed out that the hon. Member could not discuss motives.

§ MR. PARNELL
said, he would give the hon. Member for Dundee every facility that the Rules of the House would permit of in discussing the motives which guided him.

§ MR. E. JENKINS
said, hon. Members below the Gangway had declared that they were not obstructing Business; but there seemed to be very little reason in the stand they had taken. They contended they had a right to obstruct the Business at a certain time in the morning, so that they might not pass late legislation. The Rules which had been laid down were intended to prevent the tyrannical use of a majority, where there was a strong minority on a given subject; but he failed to see that in the present case, there was a strong minority, for even the Irish Members, as a rule, were opposed to the tactics which had been pursued, and there was no indication that the constituencies supported the course of obstruction which had been pursued. He (Mr. Jenkins) possibly last night might have spoken somewhat strongly; but the patience of the House had been extremely tried, and it was futile for a dozen hon. Members, in the course they had adopted, to expect they would be able to change a method of proceeding which had obtained for centuries. When the Home Rule Party came into the House, there was an anxiety on both sides of the House to yield every fair opportunity for them to put forward their claims, and it was felt that the Party under the Leadership of the hon. and learned Member for Limerick (Mr. Butt) and the hon. and learned Member for Louth (Mr. Sullivan) would add dignity to the proceedings of the House; but, unfortunately, there was a Rump of this Party which came forward claiming to represent the Irish people.

§ MR. PARNELL
rose to Order, and said he never claimed to represent the Irish people.

§ MR. E. JENKINS
was proceeding, when—

§ ME. PARNELL
again rose to Order.

THE CHAIRMAN
called on the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Jenkins) to proceed, and reminded the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell) that he would have the opportunity of making any observations afterwards.

§ MR. E. JENKINS
continued: He did not wish to misrepresent the hon. Member for Meath; but he certainly understood him to say that the people of Ireland did not want the Bill, and, therefore, he was speaking as the mouthpiece of the Irish people.

§ MR. O'DONNELL
said, if for nothing else, he must thank the hon. Member for Dundee for having described the Irish people as ignorant. When the hon. Gentleman again courted the favour of the Dundee Home Rule Association any reference to "the ignorance" of the Irish people would, doubtless, be far, if not from the mind, at least from the lips of the hon. Gentleman. He had spoken of a time when the Home Rule Party, led by the hon. and learned Gentlemen the Members for Limerick and Louth (Mr. Butt and Mr. Sullivan), had the respect of the House owing to their amicable spirit, and so on, but what had all this amicability succeeded in gaining? Let last night attest. He did not know what position in the Liberal Party the hon. Member for Dundee aspired to take; but he (Mr. O'Donnell) thought that it would be the extreme remnant of a very small tail. He denied that the Irish people were opposed to a proper judicial system for Ireland, but they objected to a perpetuation of the system of Bar bribery, sinecurism, and jobbery which would be the result of the present Bill.

§ MR. BIGGAR
explained that the object of the Amendment he had moved was to give a defendant the option of defending himself.

§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. GIBSON)
, in opposing the Amendment, said, that the hon. Member proposed to strike out the rule that if the memorandum put in by the defendant did not contain his address, it should not be received. Was not that a reasonable rule? Was it not also reasonable that if the defendant gave an illusory address the Court should have power to deal with the matter?

§ MR. BUTT
opposed the Amendment, on the ground that if you had to give a man notice of a trial you must know where to find him.

§ MR. BIGGAR
held that the rule as it now stood only gave room for litigation, and said that if a writ was served at any address which a man gave, all that was necessary would be fulfilled.

§ MR. LAW
pointed out that a man might give an address which did not exist at all, and the object of the rule was to insure that the address should be one that was real.

§ MR. MELDON
also said, if the Amendment was adopted the effect would be this—suppose a person gave an address that did not exist, there would be no place to serve papers, and therefore no proceedings at all could be taken.

§ MR. PARNELL
said, he saw no occasion for the clause, which, whilst being unnecessary, might also prove to be most injurious.

§ MR. BUTT
did not altogether agree with the proposed Amendment.

§ MR. BIGGAR
thought that, as a general rule, bonâ fide addresses would be given.

§ MR. PARNELL
again supported the Amendment.

§ MR. RICHARD SMYTH
thought the question should be left over on Report, if the Amendment was not agreed to.

§ MR. BIGGAR
said, the effect of the Amendment would be to give redress to defendants.

§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. GIBSON)
said, he would consider the subject on Report.

§ MR. PARNELL
objected to the words "illusory and fictitious."

§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. GIBSON)
said, those words had been in general use for a long time and could not mislead.

§ MR. RICHARD SMYTH
hoped the right hon. and learned Gentleman would consent to allow the Schedule to stand over until the Report was taken.

§ MR. BIGGAR
moved, as an Amendment, the omission of Schedule 25.

§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. GIBSON)
explained that this was one of the most valuable rules in pleading. It was to prevent surprises in litigation, and was intended to prevent a man from keeping back part of his case, and then turning round on the plaintiff with a new statement of facts. It was a rule which had been suggested by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Limerick (Mr. Butt), and accepted by the Government, and he therefore supposed the objection would not be pressed.

§ MR. PARNELL
asked, whether the rule was in the English Judicature Act?

§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IEELAND (Mr. GIBSON)
said, it was.

§ MR. BUTT
thought it would be impossible to conceive a better rule.

§ MR. BIGGAR
thought the effect of the rule was rather to benefit the Government, than the department.

§ MR. BUTT
agreed that that was the case to some extent with regard to the making of contracts; but he considered it only reasonable that it should be so.

§ MR. BIGGAR
moved an Amendment to Schedule 37, to strike out that portion of the Schedule exempting criminal proceedings from the operation of the Act. As the Bill did not include criminal proceedings, he did not see why the words should stand in the Schedule.

§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. GIBSON)
opposed the Amendment. The effect of striking out the words would make all the preceding rules apply to criminal proceedings. The rules drawn up for civil actions were quite unsuitable to criminal proceedings.

§ MR. BUTT
also opposed the Amendment.

§ MR. BIGGAR
said, he had another Amendment on the Paper; but after the reception given to the last, he should not submit it.

§ MR. PARNELL
moved, after Rule 19, to insert the words— That where there were numerous parties having the same interest in one action, one or more might be sued, or allowed to defend, as the case might he, on behalf, or for the benefit of all the parties concerned. This, the hon. Member said, followed the English Act.

§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. GIBSON)
said, he would look into the matter before the Report.

§ MR. BUTT
did not see any objection to the introduction of this particular rule.

§ MR. MELDON
opposed the Motion.

§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. GIBSON)
said, a question of the kind could not be dealt with lightly. He had not had Notice of the Amendment; but as it appeared in the Act of 1875, he would accept it now; but if he saw reason for any modification, he should bring up the matter on Report. If, where any broad principle was concerned, there were any other of the English rules which the hon. Member after consultation with his legal Friends desired to introduce, he would consider whether that might not also be done on the Report.

§ MR. BUTT
warned his right hon. and learned Friend that if he accepted the insertion of a number of those English rules, he would be opening a door to a discussion of all the rules. He thought it would be better to leave the framing of the rules to the Irish Judges.

§ MR. PARNELL
said, that if the rules were framed by the Irish Judges, this House, which ought to have the benefit of the experience of the English lawyers, would have no opportunity of considering the rules. The importance of the rules was such that the House ought to discuss each separately, and to secure such an opportunity, he would move to report Progress.

§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. GIBSON)
said, that every one of these rules had been gone over most carefully by the Lord Chancellor 1651 of Ireland, the Solicitor General for Ireland, and himself. The rules here inserted would be a guide to the Judges, and it would be unreasonable after all that had been done that the Committee should pause for nothing.