COMMITTEE. (Hansard, 24 July 1877)

§ MR. PARNELL
moved an Amendment, omitting lines 15 to 17.

§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. GIBSON)
said, that this was one of the most important clauses in the Bill, as it gave extended equitable jurisdiction to Chairmen of County Courts, and that it had not been objected to by the Select Committee, therefore he hoped the Amendment would not be pressed.

§ MR. M'CARTHY DOWNING
moved the omission of the clause.

§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. GIBSON)
defended the clause.

MR. P. MARTIN
proposed an Amendment to reduce the amount for which judgment might be signed to £20.

§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (MR. GIBSON)
said, that the clause was most useful, and it would not be desirable to take away its beneficial effects as to amounts between £50 and £20.

§ MR. M'CARTHY DOWNING
said, the clause was not objected to; but if the limit was £20 in England, why should it not be so in Ireland?

§ MR. MELDON
said, that the clause was really for the benefit of the defendant.

§ MAJOR O'GORMAN
moved to report Progress.

§ MAJOR O'GORMAN
moved that the Chairman do leave the Chair.

§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT
remarked that when the Judicature (Ireland) Bill was under consideration, certain Members from Ireland stated that that was not a Bill which the Irish people demanded. At the same time, two Members in particular insisted on the expediency of this County Courts Bill being passed during the present Session, because it would greatly benefit the people of Ireland. Those two Members were the Members for Cavan (Mr. Biggar) and Meath (Mr. Parnell), and it ought to be known not only to the people of England, but of Ireland, that these two Members were the men who had taken the course of obstructing this Bill. He hoped it would be known that this course had been taken against the protest of the hon. and gallant Member for Galway (Captain Nolan) and against the great majority of the Irish Members. He wished these facts should be recorded. They would not be forgotten, and sooner or later they would form the basis of the action which the House must take on these proceedings.

§ MR. PARNELL
admitted that on a former occasion he had admitted that this Bill was one of great importance for the Irish people. Still, he did not think he had laid himself open to the charge of obstructing the progress of the measure. When the hon. and gallant Member for Waterford moved to report Progress he endeavoured to induce 1794 his hon. and gallant Friend to withdraw the Motion. When, however, his hon. and gallant Friend named the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar) as his co-teller, he thought he should do right if he prevented their having nobody to tell. In doing so, he did not in the least consider that he should obstruct the progress of the Bill. The hon. and learned Member for Oxford (Sir William Harcourt) would find, when he set himself up as an instructor of the Irish people, that he was attempting to instruct people who did not ask for his advice. He should not be deterred from doing his duty by the threats of the hon. and learned Gentleman or of any other Englishman. He (Mr. Parnell) was prepared, if his hon. and gallant Friend (Major O'Gorman) would give way, to surrender his principles of objecting to the transaction of Business at this late hour; but if his hon. and gallant Friend persisted, he was ready to walk through the Lobby alone until 12 o'clock to-morrow.

§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER
thought it strange that the hon, Member for Meath should have felt bound to vote for a Motion which he did not approve. The Bill was one of great interest to Ireland, and he hoped the hon. and gallant Member for Water-ford would allow the Committee to proceed with it.

§ MR. BIGGAR
said, in explanation of his own part in the division, that he never liked to desert a friend; and, therefore, when the hon. and gallant Member asked him to be a Teller, he at once consented.

§ MR. COGAN
expressed concurrence in the remarks of the hon. and learned Member for Oxford, and hoped the people of Ireland would be made aware that legislation of a very beneficial character was endangered, if not prevented, by the conduct of some of their Representatives.