COMMITTEE. [ADJOURNED DEBATE.] (Hansard, 10 September 1887)

§ MR. CLANCY (Dublin Co., N.)
I think there is just as much reason for postponing this Bill as there was for postponing the other Bill upon which the Government consented to report Progress. This was described by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General (Sir Edward Clarke) as a mere Consolidation Bill the other evening when it was brought forward. I have seen some of the comments upon it, and if these comments are correct it is anything but a Consolidation Bill, for it contains a great deal of contentious matter, and, so far as I can see, contains a good deal of matter to which we should object as being likely to be injurious in Ireland to the public interest. Under the circumstances, I think it is only reasonable that the Government should now consent to report Progress. I beg to make that Motion.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Clancy.)

§ THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir EDWARD CLARKE) (Plymouth)
I hope the hon. Member will not persist in his Motion. As the hon. Member is perfectly well aware, the Bill does not apply at all to Ireland. It has to do merely with the law in England; and, in regard to the Bill itself, all I can say is that it has been before those 212 who are most interested in the subject for a considerable time. The Law Society appointed a committee to investigate it, and I have had communications from different persons who are interested in the subject; and there is only one point in Sub-section 29 which is pointed out as being a thing which ought not to appear in the Bill, because it is in another Act of Parliament which we do not propose to repeal. With that exception, no objection has been made to the consolidation of the Statutes in the measure. Many persons have suggested improvements in the law relating to Sheriffs; but that is a different matter. Amendments are things which can be much more easily dealt with when this Consolidation Bill is placed on the Statute Book. The effect of allowing this Bill to pass through Committee this evening will be that we shall get rid of no less than 40 Acts from the old Statutes which it is now absolutely necessary to keep there, and which, unless this Bill is passed, it would be necessary still to retain. This measure will prove a very convenient addition to the Statutes at large, and I appeal to hon. Members opposite to allow us to go on with it.

§ MR. CLANCY
I made the Motion for reporting Progress under a misconception. I did not know that the Act did not apply to Ireland; and being a Home Ruler, and recognizing the right of the people of England to have what they like for themselves, I beg leave to withdraw the Motion. I only wish that the same view with regard to Irish affairs was taken by English Members in this House.

§ MR. SEXTON (Belfast, W.)
I would remind the Committee of a letter which appeared in The Times, to the effect that this Bill is something more than a mere Consolidation Bill, so far as it transfers the duty of arresting persons from the police to the Sheriffs. It opens up a great matter of controversy. The writer in The Times shows, with regard to a portion of the Bill, that if a bailiff or other officer of a Sheriff arrests anybody for a felony he is liable for a misdemeanour, and is liable to imprisonment for a year. It is evident, therefore, that the Bill is a great deal more than a Consolidation Bill. Is it pro- 213 posed to transfer from the police to the Sheriff the duty of arresting a felon?

§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER) (Isle of Wight)
The gentleman who wrote the letter to The Times which the hon. Member refers to did not understand altogether the matter he was writing about. He understood one part of it, but certainly not the particular point the hon. Member has just referred, to. There is no transfer to the Sheriff of any duties which he did not previously perform contemplated by this Bill. I think it right to say that before that letter was written we had ourselves noticed that Section 29 of the Bill did propose to do that which is objected to in the letter—namely, make a certain wrongful act on the part of a Sheriff's officer a misdemeanour. That being dealt with by Common Law, we had intended to introduce an Amendment to the clause bearing upon that point. The other point suggested in the letter—namely, that duties were about to be transferred to the Sheriff which the Sheriff does not now perform—was based upon a misapprehension.

§ MR. BRADLAUGH (Northampton)
Is it not now a misdemeanour at Common Law for a Sheriff to act in this way in cases of indictable offences?

§ SIR RICHARD WEBSTER
Yes; it is a misdemeanour at Common Law; but it must be remembered that this is merely a Consolidation Bill.

§ MR. CONYBEARE (Cornwall, Camborne)
The clauses from 9 to 14 have reference to the duties of the Sheriffs; and what I want to know is—as I cannot find anything about it in the Bill—what is to be done in respect of the duties of the Sheriff's officers or the Under Sheriff?

§ THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir EDWARD CLARKE) (Plymouth)
They are not touched upon in this Bill. The object of this Bill is to put in the form of an Act of Parliament all the Statutory Law as to Sheriffs which is found in old Statutes. This Bill is a consolidation of the old Statutes in the Schedule; but it does not purport to be a Bill defining the whole duties of the Sheriff.

§ MR. SEXTON
This clause contains a proposal to render the Sheriff liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year if he refuses to arrest a tenant. I am not aware that it is the duty of a Sheriff to make arrests. I considered that the duty of making arrests was always performed by the police.

§ SIR EDWARD CLARKE
This clause makes no alteration in the existing law. The Sheriff may at any time be called upon to make arrests for felonies.

§ MR. SEXTON
All I have to say is that the customs of the House are being entirely subverted.