HC Deb 30 June 1884 vol 289 cc1733-5

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill, as amended, be now considered."—(Mr. Solicitor General for Ireland.)

MR. HEALY

said, he desired to make it clear that there should be additional places provided for holding Revision Courts and polling in County Dublin; and, therefore, he proposed to move a new clause which would effect the purpose.

MR. SPEAKER

said, he must point out that the hon. Member would not be in Order in moving a new clause at that stage without Notice.

MR. COURTNEY

said, he would suggest that the clause should be proposed on the third reading.

MR. PARNELL

said, he thought that some trouble would be saved if the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland would make a statement as to the intentions of the Government. There would then be no delay. The purpose of the Bill was to secure that voters should not be deprived of their right to the franchise by reason of any imperfection in the way the Revising Barrister did his work; and the object of his hon. Friend's (Mr. Healy's) clause was to secure that end.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALKER)

said, that the Government were desirous that the Bill should pass. They also concurred in the object desired by the hon. Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy); and in that view they thought it desirable to lighten the work of the Recorder, and provide a separate Revising Barrister.

COLONEL KING-HARMAN

rose to Order, and called attention to the fact that the Revision of Jurors and Voters Lists (Dublin County) Bill was the Question before the House. He contended that the Solicitor General for Ireland was not entitled to speak upon any other subject. ["Order!"]

MR. HEALY

asked, as a point of Order, whether the Solicitor General for Ireland was not entitled to make a statement, in order to show the Irish Members whether or not the Motion should be made?

COLONEL KING-HARMAN

, resuming, was met by loud cries of "Order!"

MR. HEALY

Walker, Walker!

MR. WARTON

asked, was the hon. Gentleman the Member for Monaghan in Order in mentioning the name of a Member?

MR. SPEAKER

having called on Mr. WALKER,

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALKER)

, resuming, said, he believed it would save the time of the House if he were allowed to proceed. He was not in a position to give any pledge; but he believed he might say, now that as all the memorials had been sent in the proposals of the hon. Member for Monaghan should receive careful attention from His Excellency.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill, as amended, considered.

MR. WARTON

said, he desired to move an Amendment to meet the case of the Revising Barrister, whose salary was £100 a-year, being ill, and employing a substitute at a salary of five guineas a-day. If the duties of the substitute occupied more than 20 days, where was the additional sum to come from? He would move the omission of Clause 3.

Amendment proposed, to leave out Clause 3.—(Mr. Warton.)

MR. COURTNEY

said, that the words of the original clause had not been altered, and the hon. and learned Member's argument had been based on a misapprehension.

COLONEL KING-HARMAN

supported the omission of the clause.

Question, "That Clause 3 stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

Bill to be read the third time upon Thursday.