COMMITTEE. (Hansard, 16 April 1883)

§ MR. FINDLATER
said, this Bill had already been before the House, and was simply intended to remedy an omission in the 19th section of the Prevention of Crime Act, in regard to the right of solicitors to practice before Investigators and other officials on the hearing of inquiries.

§ LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL
said, the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill (Mr. Findlater) must see it most unreasonable to press at that hour of the night (1 O'clock). There was not a single Irish Member who understood the Bill present, and no explanation of its provisions had been made. Under the circumstances, he could not imagine that the Committee would legislate on a matter of such importance, and, therefore, he moved that progress be reported.

§ SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF
said, it was really too bad to force the Bill through at that time of the night. It was a Bill which ought to be well considered by Irish Members, and to admit of it he begged to move that the Chairman do now leave the Chair.

§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)
said, he could not think that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Portsmouth (Sir H. Drummond Wolff) was in earnest. The Principle of the Bill was explained on the second reading, and no objection was to remedy an inconvenience arising from the provisions of the 19th section of the prevention of crime Act passed last year. That was the section of the Act which enabled inquiries to take place in cases of agrarian outrages, with a view to compensation being given to the victims or their representatives; and, at 396 the end of the clause, it was provided that the parties might be heard personally or by counsel. It was omitted to say "or by solicitor." The Committee would see that, in many districts, it would be impossible to get counsel, unless at very great expense. It was, therefore, necessary that the parties should be allowed to appear by solicitor, and this Bill was brought in with that object. There were only two clauses in the Bill, and he could not understand why a solicitor should not be allowed to plead as well as counsel.

§ LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL
said, he was glad to receive the explanation from the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General, because it only made him more determined in his opposition. The Bill was brought forward by an hon. Member who might be designated an Ulster Whig, and any Bill proceeding from that quarter of the House in which the hon. Member sat ought to be received with great hesitation. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General had said the Bill was intended to remedy a slight error in the prevention of crime Act passed last year, or, in other words, to allow solicitors to practise before the Courts of Inquiry in cases of applications for Compensation for agrarian outrages. There were no more grave or difficult inquiries carried on in Ireland, and none which more required practised legal advice, than the inquiries in question. To allow any local attorney in Armagh, or any other town in Ireland—

§ MR. J. N. RICHARDSON
said, he begged the noble Lord's pardon. Armagh was a city.

§ LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL
, continuing, said, that the cases brought before the Courts of Inquiry were of such a nature that any pettifogging solicitor ought not to be allowed to practise before them. He objected to the Bill on general grounds. It was well known that the hon. and learned Attorney General had, for some time, allowed solicitors to carry off all the practice of the Bar. It was becoming one of the most crying grievances of the juniors of the Bar, with whom, he believed, the hon. and learned Gentleman did not sympathize, that solicitors were monopolizing and carrying off their practice. He hoped the Com- 397 mittee would not allow the Bill to proceed at that disgracefully late hour of the night.

§ MR. R. N. FOWLER
said, the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General had told the House that the Bill was one which ought to be passed. If it was a Bill which ought to be passed, why did he not bring it in himself? It appeared to him (Mr. R. N. Fowler) that the Bill was of such a character that it ought to have been brought in by the Attorney General or by the Attorney General for Ireland, and not by a private Member; and, on that ground, he (Mr. R. N. Fowler) should support the Motion proposed by his hon. Friend (Sir H. Drummond Wolff).

§ MR. T. D. SULLIVAN
said, it was a strange thing that, when the Prevention of Crimes Act wanted patching up, its authors intrusted the job to a private Member.

§ SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF
said, he agreed with the hon. Gentleman (Mr. T. D. Sullivan). It was remarkable that the Government should not have taken the responsibility of the Bill upon themselves, but should shunt it on some composite Gentlemen behind them. It appeared to him that if great measures, such as the Prevention of Crime Act, were to be altered, they should be altered on the responsibility of the Government. Why did not the hon. and learned Attorney General bring for ward the Bill? Because, no doubt, he did not thing it worth while.

§ MR. HENEAGE
rose to Order, and asked whether it was competent for the hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir H. Drummond Wolff) to speak twice on the same Motion?

THE CHAIRMAN
said, he considered the hon. Member for Portsmouth (Sir H. Drummond Wolff) was quite in Order.

§ SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF
said, it would be wise for the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Heneage) to reflect before he interrupted again. The Bill might be insignificant in itself, but, by it, it was sought to amend an important Act passed last year, after a long and acrimonious discussion; and, therefore, it ought to be introduced upon the responsibility of the Government. He must persist in the Motion he had made, and he trusted the Committee would assist him in demanding that the Bill should be taken at an earlier hour of the night, 398 or not until it was actually patronized or espoused by the Government.

THE CHAIRMAN
stated that he thought the Noes had it, and his decision being challenged, he directed the Ayes to rise in their places.

§ LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL
May I rise to Order? ["No, no!"] It cannot be done, except on the Motion for adjournment.

THE CHAIRMAN
I have called on the hon. Members who challenge my decision to rise in their places.