HC Deb 30 August 1880 vol 256 cc770-5

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Bill be read a second time To-morrow, at Two of the clock."

MR. CALLAN

said, that he had to move that this Order be discharged. It was very improper to attempt to force this Bill through the House at such a late period of the Session and in the absence of Irish Members. This Bill was regarded in Ireland as one of the pet projects of Lord Cairns, and as a measure which would have a very unfavourable influence upon commerce and industry in Ireland.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

said, that as a matter of Order he did not think any discussion could take place on this Bill when it was later than half-past 12.

MR. SPEAKER

said, that the Motion of the hon. Member could not be made by reason of the operation of the half-past 12 Rule.

MR. CALLAN

said, he would make his Motion when the Bill came on on the next day.

LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL

said, that the Bill was one of immense importance and interest to Ireland. Although not directly connected with that country, yet he had several correspondents in Dublin who had written him upon the subject. It was absurd that a Bill of this sort should be passed through at that period of the Session when there were really no circumstances which justified such a course. He begged to move the adjournment of the debate.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Lord Randolph Churchill.)

MR. PARNELL

said, he hoped that the Government would not allow themselves to be intimidated. This was a measure which was much wanted in Ireland, and there was a strong feeling in its favour in Cork, Belfast, and other industrial centres in Ireland. He did trust that there would be a chance of getting the Bill through the next day, as it was a measure which had practically been before the House for two years, if not for three; and its provisions were well known to all hon. Members from Ireland.

MR. MONK

said, that he rose to Order. He wished to ask whether it was competent for an hon. Member, who had not charge of the Bill, to move that it be put down for the next day, and whether it was competent for another hon. Member to move the adjournment of the debate. The debate could only be adjourned to another day upon a question put to that effect.

MR. SPEAKER

said, that the hon. Member had given Notice of an Amendment to the Motion that the Bill be fixed for to-morrow, and it had then been moved by the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock that the debate be adjourned. He thought that those proceedings were in Order.

MR. CALLAN

said, that he would recommend the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) to read the Blue Book containing the evidence taken before the Committee of the House of Lords with reference to this subject, and particularly the evidence of the late Lord Westbury. He believed that the Bill had been petitioned against by every leading establishment in Dublin, and by all the banks and leading commercial men in Dublin. There was a very strong opposition to it in Ireland. The Petitions against the Bill went upon a very sound principle—that the Bill was diametrically opposed to the interests of creditors.

MR. SPEAKER

said, that he had already informed the hon. Member that it was not competent for him, at that hour, to enter into the merits of the Bill. The question before the House, then, was only upon the Motion for the adjournment of the debate, upon the question whether the Bill be fixed for tomorrow.

MR. CALLAN

said, that if he had sinned against the ruling of the Chair, it was inadvertently. He was always willing to yield to any intimation from the Chair; but he thought that it was unfair to large bodies of persons in Ireland to force this Bill on in the absence of those whose knowledge and experience of the practice of bankruptcy in Ireland would be of so much use in the discussion of the question.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

said, that the hon. Member had already been ruled out of Order in discussing this Bill. He was aware that there would be an opportunity next day, when the Irish Members would be able to express their feelings upon the measure by a Division.

MR. MELDON

said, that, in deference to the ruling of the Chair, he would not discuss the principle of the Bill; but he wanted to say this much, that the Bill was a most important one, and was not, as the hon. Member for the City of Cork had said, supported by a large body of opinion in Ireland. He had taken an active part in opposing the Bill, and all he wanted was to have it considered. If the Bill were not pressed on that Session, but was referred to a Select Committee the next Session, or fully discussed in that House, he would give what assistance he could to make it a useful Act. But he considered that, if carried in its present shape, the Bill was wholly opposed to the present system of bankruptcy jurisdiction in Ireland, and would work great harm.

MR. GRAY

said, that he hoped the House would consent to the Motion for the Adjournment. There had been a large number of Irish Members present that evening but most of them had left. He was aware that there was a strong feeling against this Bill, and particularly against its being forced through the House at that period of the Session. It appeared to him only reasonable when there was a strong feeling against pressing on the Bill, as must be well known to the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland (Mr. Law) that it should be brought on at that time, and particularly in the absence of hon. Members who had objections to urge against it.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)

said, that so far as he was aware, there was a strong feeling in favour of the Bill, and great pressure had been brought to bear upon the Government in order that it might be passed into law.

MR. SEXTON

said, that he hoped the Government would act very firmly in resisting the Motion for the adjournment, inasmuch as there was a strong opinion in favour of the Bill in Ireland. The fact was that the opposition to the Bill was conducted solely in the interests of legal circles.

MR. CALLAN

said, that the hon. Member had no justification for accusing him of opposing this Bill through any partiality for the legal profession.

MR. WARTON

said, that he had a wholesome distrust of the present Government, and had a strong feeling that the rate of Business that evening had been too rapid. He feared that they were indulging in too hasty legislation, and for that reason he should feel it his duty to support the Motion for the adjournment of the debate as a protest against the way in which this Bill had been forced on.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes 6; Noes 38: Majority 32.—(Div. List, No. 157.)

Original Question again proposed.

MR. GRAY

said, that he did not like to interfere in such a way as to be considered obstructive, and he was not accustomed to be in such a small minority as that in which he had recently found himself. He might say that his mini- mum was 7, but he felt very strongly the impolicy of pressing that measure on at that late hour of the morning that he must again protest against it. This was an attempt to force on a Bill at a late period of the Session when it could not be fairly discussed. He begged to move the adjournment of the House.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

said, that the minority who voted for the adjournment of the debate upon this Bill was very small. He wished to point out the effect of the course taken by the minority upon this occasion which was to prevent the House having any opportunity at all of considering this Bill. The original Motion before the House was only with regard to appointing the consideration of the Bill for the next day, and what the minority desired was to prevent the House considering the Bill at all. The thought that the majority might be allowed to have an opinion upon this occasion. It was almost unprecedented that a minority should make use of their powers in that House in order to prevent a Bill being considered at all. He had never seen such a use made of the rights of a minority before as to endeavour to prevent the House having an opportunity of considering a Bill at a time to be fixed.

MR. SPEAKER

asked if the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carlow moved the adjournment of the House?

MR. GRAY

Yes.

MR. CALLAN

seconded the Motion.

MR. PARNELL

said, that he wished to know whether it was competent for the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carlow (Mr. Gray) to move the adjournment of the House as he had already exhausted his right of speaking on the previous Motion.

MR. SPEAKER

said that, if he remembered rightly, the right hon. Gentleman had spoken upon the Motion for the adjournment. He did not think that the right hon. Gentleman was at liberty to move the adjournment of the House.

MR. MELDON

said, he wished to ask whether speaking upon an Amendment to a Motion before the House disqualified an hon. Member from subsequently speaking on the Motion itself. The Division taken was upon the Amendment of the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill) to the Question that the Bill be considered to-morrow.

MR. SPEAKER

said, that there had been a Motion for the adjournment of the debate, and, if an hon. Member made that Motion, he could not afterwards address the House.

MR. MELDON

said, that the right hon. Member for Carlow spoke upon the Motion for the adjournment, and did not move any substantive Motion.

Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members being found present.

Original Question put, and agreed to.

Bill to be read a second time To-morrow, at Two of the clock.