COMMITTEE. [Progress 7th July.) (Hansard, 15 July 1884)

§ MR. HEALY
said, he was aware the provision contained in this clause was now in force in England; but he considered the assimilation was not only needless, but objectionable. It was proposed by this clause to give to Clerks of the Peace, many of whom, in Ireland, had no knowledge of the law, power to decide behind the back of the parties concerned whether a decree should be issued. What objection could there be to have the matter argued and decided in open Court? It was no argument to say that the practice prevailed in England. Such matters ought not to be settled without the interference of a Judge; and, therefore, he trusted the Government would not accept the clause.

§ MR. FINDLATER
said, this was very simple matter. Clause 5 was a passed to save the necessity and expense of instituting a new suit in case of the decease of either plaintiff or defendant, and the consequent abatement of the proceedings. It merely provided that where parties happened to die, and there was a change in the suit, a decree might issue on behalf of any person, not a party to the suit, by leave of the Clerk of the Peace on production of the Probate or Letters of Administration. Surely there was nothing unreasonable in that. It was a mere formal matter, and the practice in England was similar. Clerks of the Peace were all men of high position in their Profession, and had a competent knowledge of the law.

§ MR. HEALY
was extremely sorry the hon. Gentleman would not consent to waive the point, because this clause was certainly a blot in the Bill, and if it was not dropped, he (Mr. Healy) should feel obliged to offer the Bill the 1251 strongest opposition. He regarded the clause as a most mischievous one, which could do no good, but which must do a great deal of harm. Why give an official power to decide this matter behind the backs of the parties? Why should it not be argued in the open Court? There was no appeal; therefore, why give such exceptional power to a mere functionary? How were Clerks of the Peace in Ireland appointed? Were they appointed according to any system in which the people at large had confidence? He answered, "No." There was not the same reason in this country to regard the actions of Clerks of the Peace with suspicion, and he and his hon. Friends had the right to insist upon the principle that these things should be done in open Court. He was surprised that his Colleague (Mr. Findlater) in the representation of Monaghan should suggest the insertion of such a clause as this in the Bill. He (Mr. Healy) was in favour of having these decrees issued in open Court, and he should be pleased to hear the views of Irish Members generally on the point.

§ THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALKER)
pointed out to the hon. Member for Monaghan (Mr. (Healy) that Clause 5 was really a supplement to Clause 4. ["Oh!"] He was quite disinterested in the matter, and was only stating what occurred to him. Clause 4 provided— Where one or more of several plaintiffs or defendants shall die after a decree, dismiss, or order shall have been made in any suit in a civil bill court, the execution of the said decree, dismiss, or order may be carried out by or against the survivors or survivor of the plaintiffs or defendants, without any renewal of such decree, dismiss, or order. And Clause 5 was merely consequential, for it declared— Execution on a decree, dismiss, or order may issue on behalf of any person not a party to the suit by leave of the clerk of the peace," &c. And Clause 5 simply carried out the provision of Clause 4.

§ MR. HEALY
said, he did not think it worth while to contest the point at any length; but it must be plain to the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill (Mr. Findlater) that to attempt to thrust such a provision as this down their throats would only endanger the passing of the Bill. He did not regard the Bill as a very valuable one—indeed, he 1252 regarded it as a Bill which would only postpone future legislation. Certainly, to propose an Amendment of this kind, in the face of the opposition which must be offered to it, would only have the effect of overloading the Bill, and leading to its ultimate defeat and rejection. If the Government could not see their way to reject the clause, he hoped they would at least give hon. Members an opportunity of further considering it.

§ MR. HARRINGTON
asked whether it was proposed to impose any check on the Clerks of the Peace? It seemed to him that absolute power was given by the clause, and that in case of any one desiring a decree, it could issue forthwith. There might be 10 different people opposed to the issuing of the decree, and yet no notice in regard to it need be given to them. The proposal contained in this clause was monstrous, and if it were already on the Statute Book, he should expect a Bill to be introduced for its repeal.

§ MR. FINDLATER
said, that, as a matter of fact, the Bill was desired by Boards of Guardians and Mercantile Associations throughout Ireland. They were perfectly satisfied with its provisions, which had been extensively circulated and canvassed, and those institutions, he imagined, understood the opinion of the people of Ireland on the subject as well as hon. Gentlemen opposite. He had, however, no objection to report Progress, to admit of further consideration.