§ Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Amendment [13th May], on Consideration of Bill, as amended.
§ New Clause:—
§ (Technical breach of tenancy shall not disqualify.)
§ "Where any person claiming to occupy or to have occupied a dwelling-house, lands, or tenements, was evicted from such premises for non-payment of rent during the qualifying period of occupation, but was subsequently reinstated in the possession of same, such person shall be deemed, notwithstanding such eviction, to have been in occupation of said premises during the whole of the qualifying period if he can show that he has paid the poor rates for such qualifying period,"—(Mr. Healy,)
§ —brought up, and read the first and second time, and amended.
§ Amendment proposed, in line 3, after the word "reinstated," to insert the words "by writ of restitution."—(Mr. Solicitor General for Ireland.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
§ Debate resumed.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Clause, as amended, agreed to, and added to the Bill.
§ MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANmoved, in page 2, after Clause 5, the insertion of a new clause providing that Section 3 of 13 & 14 Viet., c. 69, should apply to freemen, and that they should thus be disqualified for voting if they received parochial relief.
§ Clause (Disqualification as to freemen,)—(Mr. Campbell-Bannerman,)—brought up, and read the first time.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the said. Clause be now read a second time."
§ MR. SEXTONsaid, there was no machinery by which freemen who had received parochial relief could be removed from the list of voters. He would, therefore, suggest the following addition to the clause:—
That the town clerk shall supply to the clerk of the union a copy of the roll of freemen, and the clerk of the union shall return 513 such copy with the names marked of the freemen who have received poor law relief within the period for the purpose of disqualifying them.
§ MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid, a clause to the effect of the present proposal of the hon. Member had been withdrawn in favour of the Amendment he (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman) proposed.
§ MR. WARTONsaid, that the clause proposed was a monstrosity, inasmuch as every person who received parochial relief was disqualified from exercising the franchise, including freemen, and therefore it was not necessary to incorporate it in the present Bill. The proposal was nothing but a mere waste of time on the part of the Government, and if the clause was persisted in he should divide the House against it.
§ MR. LEWISsaid, that those of them who happened to be really acquainted with the structure of the Act of Parliament were bound to resist the clause; because, if they did not, they would be committing the House to a piece of legislative folly. All the clause did was to say that a disqualification which applied to every man without distinction should apply to freemen. If the clause did anything at all, it rather threw doubt on the existing law. By the law as it at present stood all who received parochial relief, freemen included, were thereby disqualified. If this Amendment were passed, on the principle of expressio unius exclusio alterius, pauper relief, except in the case of freemen, would not disqualify. Such specific enactments were only an encumbrance on legislation, and had no justification.
§ MR. SMALLsaid, he did not often agree with the hon. Member for Derry (Mr. Lewis); but, in this case, he was bound to agree that the disqualification in question applied to all classes of electors, and the clause was, therefore, unnecessary. Clerks of Unions wore always conversant with the names of freemen who had received parochial relief. This Amendment of the Chief Secretary for Ireland was another instance of the fact that when Irish Members asked for one thing from the Government, they got another. What they asked for was machinery to apply the existing law to freemen. The clause simply said that the general law included freemen, without providing machinery 514 for applying the general law to that particular class.
§ THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. Walker)said, he would be happy to consider the Amendment of the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton).
§ Question put.
§ The House divided:—Ayes 145; Noes 28: Majority 117.—(Div. List, No. 189.)
§
On the Motion of Mr. SEXTOX, Clause amended, by inserting, at end, the following words:—
The town clerk shall supply to the clerk of the union a copy of the roll of freemen, and the clerk of the union shall return such copy with the names marked of the freemen who have received poor law relief within the period for the purpose of disqualifying them.
§ Clause, as amended, agreed to, and added to the Bill.
§ MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANmoved the following new clause:—
Every revising barrister acting for a borough shall hold at least one evening sitting of his court in such borough.An evening sitting shall commence not later than seven nor earlier than six o'clock in the evening, and shall be of such duration as shall be, in the opinion of the revising barrister, reasonable.Special notice or notices of each evening sitting shall be published by the town clerk in such manner as the revising barrister may direct.
§ Clause (Evening sittings of revision court,)—(Mr. Campbell-Bannerman,)—brought up, and read the first time.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the said Clause be now read a second time."
§ MR. SEXTONproposed to insert, after the word "borough," "or in a town of 3,000 inhabitants." He also failed to see why the counties should be separated from the boroughs in Ireland in this matter, for that was an anomaly, and did not exist in England, inasmuch as it had been duly provided for in the English Bill. Surely it was of as much importance to residents in county divisions to be accurately described as it was to those living in boroughs.
§ MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid, that it had been generally agreed that the same course should be adopted in Ireland as in England.
MR. GORSTsuggested that there should be a limit of population of towns 515 in Irish counties in which evening sittings should be held. According to the English law, such evening sittings were to be held only in towns of over 10,000 inhabitants.
§ MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid, if that were the case, he would be willing to assimilate the law.
§ MR. BIGGARpointed out that the towns in Ireland were, for the most part, small in comparison with those of England. If the law of Ireland were assimilated with that of England, he maintained that an Irish town containing 3,000 inhabitants was of as much importance as an English town containing 10,000 inhabitants. This alteration in the law would be quite as advantageous to the Conservatives as to the Liberals.
§ MR. SEXTONThirty-two. [Laughter.]
§ MR. LEWIS,continuing, said, there were 32 counties in Ireland; but he did not believe that in more than five or six cases evening sittings would be rendered necessary. If the Motion applied to counties as well as to boroughs, there would be Revision Courts opened at night at which there would not be business to transact.
§ MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid, the Government wished to give the same facilities to Ireland for registration purposes as were enjoyed in England. He was not aware that evening sittings had been extended to counties in England until that moment. That being so, and as he thought the limit of a population of 10,000, as in England, was too high, he would suggest that, after borough," the following words should be inserted:—
Or hold his court in towns containing, according to the last published Census, more than 6,000 inhabitants.
§ MR. SMALLsaid, he thought that even the limit now proposed by the right hon. Gentleman was too high a number. There were 14 counties in Ireland which had no town with a population exceeding 5,000.
§ MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANreplied, that, in those cases, there would be no need for evening sittings.
§ MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, he could not agree with the statement that in many counties there would be no contest in the Revision Courts. From his experience of the action of those holding the opinions of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Dublin University, he believed they would contest every vote in Kinsale, Mallow, Bandon, and Youghal.
§ Question put, and agreed to; Clause read a second time accordingly.
§ MR. GIBSONsaid, he thought 3,000 too low a limit of population, and while he thought 5,000 would be a very good limit, he was prepared to agree to something less—say, 4,000.
§ MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid, he would accept 4,000.
§
On the Motion of Mr. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN, Clause amended, by inserting, in line 3, after "borough"—
Or hold his court in towns containing, according to the last published Census, more than 4,000 inhabitants.
§ Clause, as amended, agreed to,and added to the Bill.
§ THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALKER)moved the following clause:—"The lists of voters may be made out alphabetically or by streets."
§ Clause (List of voters,)—(Mr. Solicitor General for Ireland,)—brought up, and read the first and second time.
§ Amendment proposed, by inserting, before the first word "The," the words "On all."—(Mr. Small.)
§ Question, "That the words 'On all' be there inserted," put, and negatived.
§ Clause amended, and added to the Bill.
§ Clause 3 (Power of the Lord Lieutenant in Council to prescribe forms.)
§ Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 23, by leaving out the word "may," and inserting the word "shall,"—(Mr. Sexton,)—instead thereof.
§ Question, "That the word 'may' stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.
§ Amendments made.
§ Clause agreed to.
§ Clause 7 (Polling districts).
§ MR. SEXTONmoved to amend the clause by inserting a new sub-section, 517 the effect of which would be that in every Parliamentary borough in Ireland, except Dublin and Belfast, Municipal Corporation Town Commissioners and Boards of Guardians should be at liberty to appear by counsel and give evidence before Justices in the case of making or altering polling districts. It was also proposed by the sub-section, that the same bodies should be empowered to appeal to the Lord Lieutenant and the Privy Council against any order of Justices as to polling districts. The hon. Member explained that he omitted Dublin and Belfast from the provision, because the Municipal Corporations in those cases fixed the polling districts.
§
Amendment proposed,
In page 3, line 6, by inserting, after subsection (1), the words,—"In every Parliamentary borough in Ireland, except the city of Dublin and the town of Belfast, and in every Parliamentary county in Ireland, any municipal corporation or board of town commissioners, or any board of poor law guardians, shall be entitled to appear by counsel or otherwise, and to make representations and offer evidence, before the chairman of quarter sessions and justices of the county, with reference to the constitution of any polling district or districts lying wholly or partly within the area of any such municipality or poor law union, or in opposition to any order made, or intended to be made, by such chairman and justices constituting or altering such polling district, and such chairman and justices shall give such public notice of their intention to make an order constituting or altering a polling district so as to enable any municipal corporation or board of town commissioners or poor law guardians concerned as aforesaid to appear and give evidence before them, and any such board, so concerned, shall be entitled to appeal to the Lord Lieutenant and Privy Council against any order of the chairman and justices affecting them as aforesaid, and to appear by counsel and give evidence in support of such an appeal."—(Mr. Sexton.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
§ MR. LEWISsaid, he did not think that it would serve any useful purpose to provide such elaborate machinery for disputing and appealing matters of this kind.
§ THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALKER)said, he wished to point out that the adoption of the proposal, would seriously delay the preliminary arrangements for the General Election. At present, all parties interested had a right to be heard before 518 Justices on questions of this kind, and there was a regular mode of appealing from an order of Justices as to polling districts.
§ MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid, that he would be l0th to introduce any change in the present procedure, which had been adopted from the Ballot Act, and which had been found to work smoothly and well. It would be inexpedient, in the present urgent state of affairs, to run a risk of causing delay, seeing that they did not know what might happen if they made the alteration proposed.
§ MR. CALLANsaid, that if it could be shown him that the adoption of the Amendment would retard the procedure in any way he would vote against it. His own opinion was that it would accelerate it.
§ Question put.
§ The House divided:—Ayes 27; Noes 52: Majority 25.—(Div. List, No. 190.)
§
On the Motion of Mr. SMALL, the following Amendments agreed to:—In page 3, after line 22, insert—
Not later than one month after the passing of this Act the town councils or town commissioners of the other boroughs in Ireland shall respectively take into consideration the divisions of such boroughs into polling districts, and shall respectively divide such boroughs into polling districts in such manner as may be most convenient for taking the votes of electors, and so that as nearly as possible an equal number of electors may be allotted to poll in each, district;
in line 23, after "councils," insert "and town commissioners;" and after line 26, insert—
The register of voters shall be made up in separate lists for each polling district.
§ Clause, as amended agreed to.
§ Clause 8 (Power to appoint additional revising barristers).
§ MR. SEXTON,in moving an Amendment to part of the clause enacting that Revising Barristers dealing with the Act should be of "not less than six years' standing," said, he would appeal to the right hon. Gentleman not to put in such a limitation as that. He believed that the new Act, which would allow barristers to take out their degrees in Dublin, would make the Bar more popular, and he believed that some of these young barristers might be far more capable of 519 dealing with the Act than some of the old and stupid men who had been for years hanging about the Four Courts.
§
Amendment proposed,
In page 3, line 35, by leaving out the words "of not less than six years' standing at the bar."—(Mr. Sexton.)
§ Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
§ MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid, the hon. Member had anticipated a great addition to the number of barristers in Ireland, and that, therefore, the restriction should be removed. He (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman) thought that that was an argument which would apply the opposite way. He believed that this was the usual period required for persons who performed such duties to have been called to the Bar.
§ MR. KENNYsupported the Amendment, and urged that, in many eases, the young barristers would be very much more capable of dealing with the scheme, which, after all, did not require a great amount of knowledge to carry out, than the older men. He believed that for some appointments to the India Civil Service—even the Bench—three years only were required.
§ MR. GIBSONsaid, he was bound to say that he did not agree with the hon. Member for Sligo. He would admit that there were a number of very intelligent young men, and some very stupid old men; but, at the same time, experience was an advantage in all the transactions of mankind, and more especially so in the men who were to deal with these matters of electoral law.
§ MR. MOLLOYsupported the Amendment.
§ MR. CALLANsaid, he could state, from experience, that some of the old Revising Barristers were absolutely lading in intelligence. He, on one occasion, had to appear before two old fogies—Messrs. Lefroy and Gamble—who were acting in that capacity, and he assured the House that two men more lamentably ignorant, it had never been his misfortune to be brought into contact with. Very young men fresh from the Inns of Court made better judges of electoral law than those who had for years been hanging about the Courts losing whatever acumen they might ever have possessed.
§ MR. LEWISsaid, he believed that, if the door were opened to all the young barristers of two or three years' standing, the Lord Lieutenant would be actually pestered with the great number of applications, both of the young barristers and their friends.
§ MR. SMALLsaid, in his opinion, some of the banisters described as "briefless" would he of 36 or even 46 years' standing. He, for his part, preferred to consult young barristers, who were always better acquainted with recent enactments than those who merely went through their day's work without troubling themselves to ascertain the latest changes.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ MR. SMALL,in moving an Amendment, to the effect that the appointment of additional Revising Barristers might not be confined to the year 1885, but that such appointments might be made in any year, said, that in most counties of Ireland additional Revising Barristers would not be necessary, but they would in some, such as Antrim, where the County Court Judge had a great deal of work to do both in the County Courts and Revision Courts.
§
Amendment proposed,
In page 3, line 38, by leaving out the words "the year one thousand eight hundred and eighty-five," and inserting the words "any year,"—(MR. Small,)
—instead thereof.
§ Question proposed, "That the words 'one thousand eight hundred and eighty-five,' stand part of the Bill."
§ THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALKER)said, he could not accept the Amendment.
§ MR. SEXTONsaid, he was surprised that the hon. and learned Gentleman refused to accept the Amendment.
§ Clause agreed to.
§ Clause 9 (Informalities in registration shall not affect validity of register).
§ On the Motion of Mr. SEXTON, Amendment made, by inserting in page 4, line 9, after "purpose," the words "neither shall any informality in the filling up of forms or lists disfranchise the voter."
§ Clause, as amended, agreed to.
§ Clause 10 (Collectors shall give assistance in serving notices).
521§ On the Motion of Mr. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN, the following Amendment made:—In page 4, line 27, leave out from "assist" to "in," in line 28.
§ Clause, as amended, agreed to.
§ Clauses 11, 12, and 13 verbally amended, and agreed to.
§ Clause 17 (Costs of appeal).
§ COLONEL NOLANmoved, as an Amendment, the omission of the part of the clause relating to the payment of costs when Clerks of the Peace are made respondents in appeals from the decisions of Revising Barristers. He objected to making a Clerk of the Peace a party in these cases and then paying his costs out of the rates, unless the ratepayers had some control over him.
§
Amendment proposed,
In page 6, line 19, by leaving out from the words, "the costs," to the word "decision," in line 23.—(Colonel Nolan.)
§ Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
§ THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALKER)said, that, the clause had been inserted in the Bill at the suggestion of the hon. and learned Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy), who pointed out that there was an analogous provision in the English Bill. The clause enabled an appellant to require the Revising Barrister to name the Clerk of the Peace or the Town Clerk as respondent, even against his will, in an appeal; and, under those circumstances, it was only right that his expenses should come out of a public fund. They might now strike out the clause altogether; but, if it were retained at all, its whole purpose would be defeated by the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Member.
§ MR. CALLANsaid, he objected to the Clerk of the Peace, a semi-judicial officer, being made a respondent; and he would like to know whether his expenses would be paid out of the poor rates, or out of the Consolidated Fund? In the former case, he should object to the arrangement; in the latter case, he should not.
§ MR. GIBSONsaid, the matter could be easily settled. This provision was not originally in the Government Bill, it having been introduced at the instance of the hon. and learned Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy), who pointed 522 out that a similar clause was in the English Act. He (Mr. Gibson) maintained that hon. Members must take the clause as a whole or not at all. If hon. Members wished, for the clause, they must take it as it stood; if they did not wish for it, then it should be struck out. It seemed to him that the argument of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland was unanswerable, and, speaking for himself, he was quite satisfied to retain the clause, on the argument that it was founded on a provision in the English Act.
§ MR. SEXTONsaid, the Bill proceeded on the principle that those persons who did not perform their duties should be subjected to penalties. He maintained, therefore, if the Town Clerk or the Clerk of the Peace was guilty of any irregularity, nothing could be more just or necessary than that the official should be bound to pay for his misconduct. He thought that the clause must be struck out, or some provision introduced with the object of securing a borough or a county against the costs of appeal arising out of frivolous objections.
§ MR. WARTONsaid, he would call the attention of hon. Members to the 59th section of the Parliamentary Voters (Ireland) Act, and argued against depriving the Town Clerk or the Clerk of the Peace of his costs.
§ MR. KENNYsaid, he was of opinion that not only was the clause an objectionable one, but that it embodied an unsound and unfair principle. He recommended the omission of the whole clause.
§ MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid, that as far as (he Government were concerned, they were willing enough that the clause should be omitted. It did not originate with them, it having, as he had said, been accepted at the instance of the hon. and learned Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy), who took it from the English law. The Government thought that the clause, as it stood, could do no harm, although, at the same time, they had no particular love for it. He wished to point out, however, that the clause having been amended on Report, it could not now be struck out of the Bill.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
523
§
Amendment proposed,
In page 6, line 36, by leaving out from the word "expenses," to the word "relates," in line 40.—(Colonel Nolan.)
§ Question proposed "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
§ COLONEL NOLAN,in moving a further Amendment to add to the clause the words—"Provided the court rules that these costs have not been incurred by his own fault or negligence," said, the object of the Amendment was to prevent Clerks of the Peace or other registration officers from incurring needless legal expenses, and to make the ruling of the Court necessary, in order to the exemption of these officials from the payment of costs in unsuccessful applications made by them.
§
Amendment proposed,
In page 6, line 40, by inserting, after the word "relates," the words "Provided the court rules that these costs have not been incurred through his own fault or negligence."—(Colonel Nolan.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
§ THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALKER)said, he could not accept the Amendment.
§ Question put.
§ The House divided;—Ayes 28; Noes 68: Majority 40.—(Div. List, No. 191.)
§ Clause amended, and agreed to.
§ Clause 18 (Duties and powers of court of revision).
§ MR. SEXTON,in moving an Amendment to provide that a man whose name had been passed over in his absence should have his claim heard if he appeared, and gave a good reason for his absence before the Court concluded its sitting, said, the arrangement contained in his Amendment would prove of great convenience to electors when they were called upon to attend at the Revision Courts.
§
Amendment proposed,
In page 8, line 15, by leaving out after the word "founded," to the words "objected to," in line 18.—(Mr. Sexton.)
§ Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
524§ THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALKER)said, he could not accept the Amendment.
§ Question put.
§ The House divided:—Ayes 91; Noes 32: Majority 59.—(Div. List, No, 192.) Amendment negatived.
§
Amendment proposed,
In page 8, line 22, by inserting, after the word "behalf," the words "before the conclusion of the sittings of the court."—(Mr. Sexton.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
§ THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALKER)opposed the Amendment, as being unnecessary.
§ MR. DEASYsaid, that unless the Amendment were carried, thousands of voters would be unjustly disfranchised; and he would therefore move the adjournment of the debate, in order to give the Government time to reconsider the Amendments of which Notice had been given.
§ MR. WILLIAM REDMONDseconded the Motion.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Mr. Deasy.)
MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he trusted that the hon. Member would not persevere with the Motion, as the necessity for passing the Bill at once was urgent, and it was quite a mistake to suppose that an adjournment could produce any change in the views of the Government as to the necessity for the Amendment. The Government might be right, or they might be wrong, but they entertained a very clear opinion in their own minds about the Amendment; and it was quite a mistake to suppose that their present view had been arrived at owing to want of time for considering the matter. He was of opinion that the principle involved in the Amendment, if it were inserted in the Bill, might be adopted in regard to every matter that came before a Court. The reason which would make it right to extend this provision so as to give an opportunity for a man whose name had been passed over in his absence to have his claim heard, if he subsequently appeared, would apply to 525 the procedure in every Court throughout the country.
§ SIR JOSEPH M'KENNAsaid, he believed that the principle now contended for was virtually adopted in every Court of Justice. All that was asked for was that there should be no adverse decision against a voter who claimed to have his name upon the Register, until it was proved by positive evidence that the name was not entitled to be there.
§ MR. SPEAKERThe hon. Gentleman is now discussing the Main Question, and not the Question before the House, which is, "That the Debate be now adjourned."
§ SIR JOSEPH M'KENNAsaid, that he was only referring to what the Prime Minister had said upon the question.
§ MR. SPEAKERI must repeat that the hon. Member is not entitled to debate the Main Question on the Motion, "That the Debate be now adjourned."
§ SIR JOSEPH M'KENNAsaid, he hoped his hon. Friend (Mr. Deasy) would not persist with the Motion for Adjournment, and for this reason—there were grounds for believing that the Government might be induced to amend the provisions of the Bill, so as to establish the plain principle adopted in every Court of Law, that there should not be an adverse decision against any person who was entitled to appear before the Court until clear evidence had been given.
§ MR. SEXTONsaid, he regretted that the Rules of Order prevented him from making a reference to the Main Question, as it would have been convenient that he should reply to the remarks of the Prime Minister. In confining himself to the question of the adjournment of the debate, he would only state the impression which had been produced on the minds of the Irish Members. They had laid case after case before the Chief Secretary for Ireland in a manner which they considered fair and calm. There was not a man on those Benches who desired to keep a capable citizen off the Register. They felt the urgency of the state of things; and, personally, he (Mr. Sexton) yielded to no man in his wish to see the Bill pass with the utmost rapidity. At the same time, he was anxious, before it passed into law, to see that no capable citizen was deprived of the franchise in consequence of any impediment which 526 was unnecessarily thrown in his way-He felt a strong conviction, that if the Prime Minister had been present during the whole of the evening, several of the claims which the Irish Members had made would have commended themselves to the right hon. Gentleman's mind as plainly as they did to his (Mr. Sexton's). He regretted that he was compelled to believe that the passing of the Bill would not be facilitated, but impeded, by the stolid and set determination of the Government to reject every Amendment made by the Irish Members, not upon its merits, but because it was proposed from that quarter of the House. The Irish Members were quite as anxious as the Government were to pass the Bill in a workable shape.
§ MR. WILLIAM REDMONDsaid, he hoped that the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Deasy) would go to a division upon the adjournment of the debate. He thought the Government had treated the Irish Members throughout the discussion of the Bill in a way which was very much to be regretted. In supporting the Motion for Adjournment, he hoped he might be allowed to say that if the Government would treat the Irish Members with the same amount of consideration as that which they exhibited towards the Scotch Members, there would be no necessity for his hon. Friend to move the adjournment, or for any of the adjournments which, from time to time, the Irish Members found themselves compelled to move in that House. In this case, they had before them a matter which affected Ireland and the Irish Members alone; and on one side of the House the Irish Members, in a united body, had expressed their feeling in favour of the proposal which had been made. On the other side of the House there was one Irish Gentleman (the hon. and learned Solicitor General) and one Scotch Gentleman (the Chief Secretary for Ireland) who desired to override the opinions of the great bulk of the Irish Members present. Such a state of things was intolerable to hon. Members who represented the people of Ireland. It was plain to see that their opinions had not the slightest weight with Her Majesty's Government, and that the opposition of the Chief Secretary for Ireland was sufficient to nullify everything they attempted to do. He hoped, therefore, 527 that his hon. Friend would persist with the Motion for Adjournment; because, if the Irish Members got sat upon time after time in that House, it was only natural that they should resent the treatment they received, and the only way in which they could do so was to move Motions for Adjournment now and then. If the Government still refused to give way, he trusted that a few more adjournments would be moved.
§ MR. SMALLsaid, he did not think the Government would lose much time if they consented now to the adjournment of the debate; because, if not, they would find that they would have to consent to it before they made much more progress with the Bill. There were a large number of Amendments which must be introduced into the forms contained in the Schedules; and it appeared to him that, if the Government did not consent to an adjournment, then it would be necessary to do so later on, in order that fresh clauses might be introduced into the Bill. It would, therefore, be better to adjourn then in order that they might have the forms in the Schedule submitted in a manner which would insure correspondence with the clauses of the Bill. The Bill itself had been drawn hastily and imperfectly, and would still require careful amendment.
§ MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid, he did not know what object hon. Members opposite could have; but he was sure they could not be aware of the extreme urgency of the measure. The greater part of the Bill consisted of Amendments which had been suggested by hon. Members opposite themselves. The very clause they were now discussing was a clause which had been put into the Bill at the instance of the hon. and learned Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy), and yet the Government were told by the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) that they were sitting silent, with a stolid determination to resist every suggestion that came from the Irish Members. A considerable part of the Bill had been suggested by Irish Members; but it so happened that the last two or three Amendments the Government had not accepted. They were, as he had said, Amendments moved upon clauses taken from the English law, and put into the present Bill, on the recommendation and at the 528 suggestion of the hon. and learned Member for Monaghan. They were also Amendments which had been moved without Notice, although the clauses had been on the Paper ever since the Bill passed through Committee. As to the urgency of the measure, it was absolutely necessary that this stage of the Bill should be got through that night, and when that was done, it would be his duty to ask the House even to read the Bill a third time at once; because, unless it went to the House of Lords to-morrow, it would fall behind the Scotch and English Bills, and would literally have no chance of being passed into law before the Whitsuntide Recess. If that happened, the whole matter would be thrown into confusion. None of the new clauses were really new, or had been sprung upon the House, and abundant opportunity had been afforded for considering them in all their details. The Schedules to which the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Small) referred had been before the House in Committee, and plenty of opportunity had been given for considering them. If they required correcting now, let them go on at once with the work of amendment; but do not let them waste more time over it. If the work of registration was to be carried out in Ireland at all with anything like efficiency this year, and with any idea of a General Election taking place somewhat sooner than was first contemplated, it was absolutely necessary that the Bill should be read in the House of Lords a first time to-morrow night.
§ COLONEL KING-HARMANsaid, that after what the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland had said as to the General Election, he should feel inclined to support the Motion for Adjournment, as he was particular anxious that the General Election should take place on the old Register.
§ Question, "That the Debate be now adjourned," put, and negatived.
§ Question again proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
§ MR. H. G. ALLENsaid, that as different views had been expressed respecting the Amendment, he would throw out a suggestion. He was well acquainted with the practice in the Revision Courts, and his experience enabled him to say that the ists were 529 always sub-divided. For instance, there was the freeman's list, the householder's list, and the lodger's list, and the Revising Barrister, when all the objections had been gone through in their alphabetical order, signed the list, and that act was considered to conclude the matter. What he would suggest was, that if a man was not in attendance when his name was called, but appeared before the signing of the list, the Revising Barrister might hear him. Of course, a difficulty would arise, especially in the case of large towns, if the lists were required to be kept open for a number of days, and if a provision were inserted in the Bill binding the Revising Barrister to keep open the list until the whole of his inquiry was completed, considerable inconvenience would be entailed. He thought that a rule, requiring the Revising Barrister to sign each list when he came to the end of it, but to hear any objected person who might attend before such signature was made, would meet the objection which had been raised. No doubt it would be a great hardship to strike out a name, simply because the man named had left the Court for a few minutes to get his lunch, or his dinner, or a glass of beer. It would be hard if such a person, on returning into Court, were to find that there had been a rush, and that his name had been struck out in his absence. The usual practice in Registration Courts was that an advocate represented each side—one represented the objectors, and another supported the voter. If the advocate who supported the voter were in a position to say that the claimant had been about the Court, and was only absent temporarily, and were to request the Revising Barrister to pass over the name, it would be certainly very hard for the Revising Barrister to refuse to hear his case on the simple ground that the name had been reached; and he himself had never adopted so strict a course. If the Revising Barrister took that course, he might easily disfranchise, hastily and without consideration, a considerable number of persons. He would not require the Revising Barrister to postpone the hearing of a particular case, until the man came back into Court; but a particular hour, say, the dinner hour, or the close of a particular list, might be fixed for hearing such cases, 530 without resorting to the extreme course of striking out the name, before the voter had had an opportunity of being heard. He threw this out as a suggestion which he hoped might be accepted. He was sorry to hear that cases of this kind did occur on the other side of the water.
§ COLONEL NOLANsaid, that the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. H. G. Allen) was a great authority on these matters. He (Colonel Nolan) thought the hon. Member put the ease very favourably for the Irish Members, and he trusted that the Government would feel inclined to accept the suggestion he had made. Unfortunately, cases of this kind did occur in Ireland. It might be that there was no advocate inside at the moment; and in regard to his own county, he had been told more than once that an advocate in the Revision Courts was generally conspicuous by his absence.
§ MR. P. J. POWERsaid, he was afraid that, in all probability, the difficulty would increase considerably with the increase of voters. Exception had been taken to the rules which were now laid down by the Revising Barristers. He must say that the Revising Barristers in Ireland, with very few exceptions, did their business in a most unsatisfactory way—at any rate, in a manner unsatisfactory to the majority of the people. He felt bound to mention, as an exception, the County Court Judge of the county of Waterford, who always discharged his duty in this, as in all other respects, to the satisfaction of the majority of the people. He hoped the Government would bear in mind that the coming Revisional Session was one of the most important they had had for generations, and upon it would, in all probability, hinge the nature of the coming General Election. He submitted that, from a variety of circumstances, the new voters would not be conversant with the rules of the Registration Court, and the formalities which should be gone through so as to enable them to get their names on the lists. Under these circumstances, he hoped the Government would seriously entertain the moderate proposal of his hon. Friend the Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton).
MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHYsaid, he was quite willing to accept, as a com- 531 promise, the suggestion which had been made by the hon. and learned Member for Pembroke (Mr. H. G. Allen). He confessed that he was astonished at the manner in which the Government held out on a point of this kind—even upon matters of arrangement and compromise. The Chief Secretary for Ireland had said, a few minutes ago, that some of the principal Amendments which had been introduced into the Bill had been made upon the suggestion of the Irish Members. In other words, having inserted in the Bill a variety of Amendments, at the instance of the Irish Members, they had virtually changed the Bill from the character it originally presented. Then why should the Government oppose a further suggestion which certainly had received the support of every English Member who understood the question? He trusted that the Government would not pursue this obstinate course any further, but would come to a compromise upon the matter.
§ THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL)said, he should like to see his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Pembroke (Mr. H. G. Allen) put the suggestion he made into words; because be (the Solicitor General) fancied that it would be a very difficult matter. Suppose that somebody appeared before the Revising Barrister and asked to have a name postponed. That was a very simple matter; but how was the other work to go on? If the Revising Barrister was to be idle, while people, who ought to be in attendance, were engaged upon other business, and if he was to sit in Court, and wait for them, it would be impossible to carry on the work of revision at all. The Revising Barrister, no doubt, would, and ought, to show every possible consideration, as a Judge would do, in trying a case where a witness was away accidentally. Before he could assent to adopt the suggestion of his hon. and learned Friend, he would ask his hon. and learned Friend to put his proposal in black and white, so that he might be able to deal with it. It would be necessary to meet more than one consideration. For instance, it was not only the Revising Barrister who would have to waste his time, but there were many other people who would be put to inconvenienc. If the Revising Barrister 532 passed over one man's name, the next man's name would be brought on sooner, and he would probably be unprepared. If, in that way, 20 or 30 names were passed over, all the rest would be misled, and would be placed in a position of considerable difficulty. Therefore, it was not only the Revising Barrister who would be inconvenienced by having to postpone cases out of their regular order, but other claimants who were lower down on the list would be enormously inconvenienced also. There were, consequently, two sides to the case. He was sure that no one could desire more than he did that the convenience of everyone should be consulted if possible; but he did not see how the House could adopt the suggestion of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Pembroke, and how they were to make such a provision, unless they were prepared to postpone the revision altogether. He was, as he had said, unable to see how the suggestion of his hon. and learned Friend was to be put into words.
§ MR. SEXTONsaid he thought he would be able to make a suggestion which would meet the difficulty.
§ THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL)said, he would wait until he saw what the suggestion was; but he could not help thinking that the adoption of the suggestion of the hon. and learned Member for Pembroke would create more inconvenience than it would prevent. It was quite certain that in attempting in this way to meet the convenience of certain persons, they would run the danger of inconveniencing a great many more.
§ MR. SEXTONsaid, he would make a suggestion in reference to what the hon. and learned Member for Pembroke (Mr. H. G. Allen) had proposed. The objection to his (Mr. Sexton's) proposal was that it would interfere with the business of the Court, and that the Revising Barrister would be stopped in his inquiry, if persons who were not in attendance when their names were called were allowed to appear at a subsequent period. He would suggest that such persons should be required to appear at a time fixed by the Revising Barrister, who would make provision that on a certain day, and at a certain hour, he would take the cases of persons whose names had been passed over. He trusted that the Government would 533 evince some desire to meet the objections which had been urged.
§ THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL)said, that if the proposal of the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) were carried out, nobody would attend the Court on the day fixed for the general inquiry, but all of the claimants would postpone their cases until the day to be fixed by the Revising Barrister for the hearing of cases which had been passed over.
§ Question put.
§ The House divided:—Ayes 39; Noes 99: Majority 60.—(Div. List, No. Clause agreed to.
§ Clause 21 (Interpretation).
§
On the Motion of Mr. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN, the following Amendment made:—In page 8, line 38, after "being," insert,—
The expression 'The Parliamentary Voters (Ireland) Act, 1850,' means the Act of the Session of the thirteenth and fourteenth years of the reign of Her present Majesty, chapter sixty-nine; the expression 'Revising Barrister' includes a county court judge and chairman of quarter sessions.
§ MR. SMALL,in moving, as an Amendment, in page 8, line 40, at end, insert—
The expression 'deputy' of a clerk of the peace in the said Parliamentary Registration (Ireland) Act, 18.50, shall mean the principal assistant of a clerk of the peace,said, that by Section 13 of the County Court Officers Act of 1877, Clerks of the Peace were entitled to have assistance; but there was no such officer in Ireland as a Deputy Clerk of the Peace. All were Clerks of the Peace, and great confusion might arise unless an interpretation were inserted to explain that the expression "deputy" in the Act of 1850 should mean the principal assistant of the Clerk of the Peace. The Clerks of the Peace were authorized by another provision in the Bill to name the persons who were to represent them in these Courts, if there were more than one Court held at the same time; and, no doubt, they would nominate efficient assistants to represent them. That fact afforded a further reason why this interpretation should be placed on the word "deputy."
§
Amendment proposed,
In page 8, line 40. at end, insert,—" The expression 'deputy' of a clerk of the peace in the
534
said Parliamentary Registration (Ireland) Act, 1850, shall mean the principal assistant of a clerk of the peace."—(Mr. Small.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
§ THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALKER)opposed the Amendment, on the ground that every contingency was provided for, and that any alteration might create confusion.
§ Question put, and negatived.
§ Clause, as amended, agreed to.