ADJOURNED DEBATE. (Hansard, 11 November 1882)

MR. GLADSTONE
said, the House would remember that an error in form 1701 had taken place in the Committee. The Committee had been misinformed to the effect that the Previous Question could be moved in Committee, and a paragraph proposed by the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) had been set aside by that Motion having been made. The proceeding was undoubtedly irregular, and therefore he would move, as the proper course to be taken under the circumstances, that, so far as the paragraph of the hon. Member for Sligo was concerned, the Report be re-committed.

§ MR. SEXTON
said, the object he had in view in placing on the Paper the Notice of Motion standing in his name was primarily the same as that stated by the Prime Minister—namely, to secure a reference back to the Committee; but he also wished to place on record the nature of the irregularity which caused the necessity for a second Reference, and he wished to assure himself that the Committee would direct their attention to that irregularity. From the concluding words of the Prime Minister, he had no doubt that his object would be attained; and, therefore, he did not propose to trouble the House by moving his Amendment. But as the language of the Reference of the Prime Minister was extremely vague, he would like to ask a question upon it. The right hon. Gentleman's proposal was that the Report and Minutes be referred back, so far as they related to a paragraph referring to the Law of Contempt which he (Mr. Sexton) proposed to add. He believed certain eminent Members of the Committee were in favour of his paragraph, which simply stated that the anomalous condition of the Law of Contempt demanded the further attention of the House; but those eminent Members believed that the paragraph was outside the scope of the Reference to the Committee. They believed that any 1702 declaration on the Law of Contempt was outside the scope of the Committee; and he, therefore, thought it would be desirable that the Committee should be relieved from any misconception as to the nature of the Reference made to them now. Was it to be a Reference with regard to the error of form simply, or were hon. Gentlemen to be precluded from voting "Aye" or "No" upon the paragraph which he proposed to add?

§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)
Sir, in reply to the point of Order which has been raised, I wish to state that, in my opinion, we shall be exactly in the same position when we meet again as we were when we met on the first occasion. Whatever the Order of Reference was when we first met; that same Order of Reference will continue in force when the Committee meets again; and we shall, when we meet, have to determine in Committee what the powers given to us by this House were on our appointment. I do not wish to enter into the subject further. Now, as the Committee itself will determine what the Reference was when the power was given to us, I think that determination will be arrived at by the Committee without much difficulty.

§ MR. PLUNKET
Sir, I do not wish to prolong the discussion already carried on with regard to this matter; but I wish to make an explanation. As this Motion is to the effect that the whole of this paragraph be referred back to the Committee, and it might appear to the House that the Previous Question had been moved and supported with regard to the whole of that paragraph, the portion of the paragraph to which I took exception was that which referred to the general Law of Contempt.

§ MR. SEXTON
I beg pardon. Before the Previous Question was moved, I had, on the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman, agreed to withdraw that portion of the paragraph referring to the general Law of Contempt.

MR. GLADSTONE
Hear, hear!

§ MR. PLUNKET
Exactly. It was to that portion of the paragraph which referred to the anomalous condition of the Law of Contempt, and which was outside the question of Privilege involved in Mr. Gray's case, that I objected, and it was on that account I supported the Previous Question. I did so because 1703 this matter of the general Law of Contempt was separated from the other considerations in the case.