SECOND READING. (Hansard, 2 July 1883)

§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. PORTER)
said, he hoped the House would not consent to the second reading of this measure, which, in practice, would be found to be perfectly unnecessary. He believed that it had been insufficiently considered by the hon. Member (Mr. Callan) who had brought it forward. The measure would disqualify persons from holding municipal offices, where they had been guilty of certain indictable offences and had admitted having committed those offences, but, it would seem, did not provide any disqualification in the case of persons who had been convicted on trial for such indictable offences; and it would, therefore, have this singular effect—that it would disqualify a person who admitted his guilt, while a person who made no such admission, but was put on his trial and convicted, would not be disqualified at all. Further than that, a practical difficulty would necessarily arise in dealing with questions under the Bill—namely, that no mode of proving the fact of admission was prescribed. The evidence given in Court would not be authentically reported, and there would be disputes as to whether the person who made the admission had or had not admitted facts which amounted to a crime. Further than this, the Bill had this objectionable feature in it—that this disqualification would only take place in the case of persons actually elected to a municipal office, and who afterwards admitted themselves guilty of an indictable offence. It would not extend to persons who had made an admission and were afterwards elected. Therefore, it seemed to him that the Bill was manifestly insufficient and eminently illogical. If it were seriously intended to legislate upon this subject, it would be well for the hon. Gentleman to consult with those with whom he acted, to see whether they could not bring forward a more matured scheme. Though no names had been mentioned, probably it would be understood that the measure had been introduced to meet certain cases which had recently arisen; but he might mention in this regard that absence from a municipal borough for six months would render the seat vacant under the Municipal Corporations Act, and thus taking the case of a person absent from the 13th of January, the period which would tend to disqualify him would expire on the 156 13th of this month. Therefore it would be seen that, in the case of a person of this kind, such a measure as this would be unnecessary. For the reason that the measure was illogical and insufficient, he would suggest that it should not be proceeded with, and would move that it be read a second time that day three months.

§ MR. CALLAN
said, he thought he had great cause of complaint against the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland, who had been guilty of a gross breach of faith towards him on this matter. The right hon. and learned Gentleman had misled him altogether on this subject. ["Oh, oh!"] Yes, he had misled him completely and distinctly. He (Mr. Callan) had crossed over from his seat in the House to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, and had spoken to him on the subject of this Bill, and the right hon. and learned Gentleman had told him that he did not object to the second reading, although he could not approve altogether of the character of the Bill, and that it would have to be considerably amended in Committee—in fact, that it would have to be recast. After having had plenty of opportunity of speaking to him (Mr. Callan) on the subject, the first intimation the right hon. and learned Gentleman had given him that he intended to oppose the Bill was this Motion of rejection. Was that a right way for an Irish Law Officer—a Member representing a Northern constituency—to treat a Member of the National Party in the House of Commons? Probably the right hon. and learned Gentleman objected to the Bill because it would disqualify the infamous James Carey. The hon. and learned Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton) had taken off his block from the Bill when he was given to understand the object with which it was brought forward, and yet the Attorney General for Ireland was there to oppose its progress. No doubt, James Carey would be disqualified by the 13th of July by his continued absence; but he 157 (Mr. Callan) wanted to disqualify him by Act of Parliament—him or any other such man in Ireland. When the real character of such a man was known, and when he admitted upon oath that he had been guilty of the most fearful crimes, he should be at once disqualified from continuing in a municipal office.

§ MR. SPEAKER
I really must call upon the hon. Member to address himself to the merits of the Bill.

§ MR. CALLAN
said, he had described the nature of the Bill, and whatever faults it might be found to have he should be ready to remove in Committee. It had been prepared by a Queen's Counsel, who was the senior of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland, and all it would do would be to disqualify a person who confessed himself guilty of an infamous offence from continuing a member of a representative body; and he should have thought that the Government would have aided such a desirable object rather than have drawn an obstacle in its way.

§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. PORTER)
said, the hon. Gentleman had entirely misunderstood what had passed between them the other evening. He had given the hon. Member to understand that he perfectly sympathized with his object, but that the Bill would not carry it out. He had mentioned the objections to the measure, pointing out that it was perfectly hopeless to think of passing it; and if the hon. Member had understood him to say that he did not intend to oppose the second reading, he was altogether mistaken.

§ MR. CALLAN
The Bill has the effect of disqualifying James Carey, and that is why you object to it—everyone knows it.