[BILL 219.] SECOND READING. (Hansard, 21 July 1881)

§ MR. WARTON
objected.

§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)
said, he hoped the objection would not be pressed. The Bill was simply to repeal several obsolete statutes that had fallen into disuse, and they were mentioned in the Schedule. These had been reported upon by the Statute Law Revision Committee, and the Lord Chancellor had gone carefully through them. It was only want of time that had prevented the Bill being brought forward earlier.

§ MR. WARTON
said, he objected on principle. This was the eighth or ninth time that the Government had proposed important Bills at such an hour.

§ MR. T. P. O'CONNOR
asked if among the obsolete statutes, any Irish Acts were included?

§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)
said, the Bill did not apply to Scotland or Ireland.

§ MR. T. P. O'CONNOR
said, he did not know whether he had any right to oppose them; but he should certainly oppose the Bill. He had himself ventured to bring in a Bill for the repealing of some Acts that still existed in Ireland, and which contained, among others, a provision that if an assemblage of 12 1596 persons did not disperse at the summons of a justice they were liable to sentence of death. Of course, this portion of the Act was never carried into effect; but there were other portions of statutes which were almost as inimical to the spirit of the times, and were made use of by the Law Officers under barbarous statutes that had never been repealed. The Colleague of the right hon. Gentleman, the hon. Baronet the Member for Bath, had put down a blocking Notice against the Whiteboy Acts Repeal Bill; and as the Government had treated him in that scurvy manner, he thought he was within his rights and equities in treating them in a somewhat similar manner. He objected to this Bill, and, if in Order, he would move the adjournment of the debate.

§ MR. WARTON
asked whether it was not the case that if the Bill was not printed it could not be brought forward?

§ MR. SPEAKER
I cannot say so positively.

§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT
thought the hon. Member (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) had misapprehended the object of this Act. There were two forms of this repealing Act; but no question of policy was now involved, and as the useful work done under this Act had gone on so long, and that the end of the Session was near, he hoped the House would pass the second reading.

§ MR. DILLWYN
stated that the Bill had been printed. Its object was to repeal obsolete Acts, and he thought the object of the House should be to clear the Statute Book of those Acts.

§ MR. HEALY
said, that the object of his hon. Friend's Bill was to repeal what were not operative Acts. The Whiteboy Acts were not operative till the present Chief Secretary made them so, and did him (Mr. Healy) the honour of trying him under those Acts, by which he might have been sent to penal servitude for life, and twice or thrice privately whipped. He should support the Motion; and he would ask the Government what advantage they would gain by reading the Bill a second time, now seeing that it would be blocked for Committee.