CONSIDERATION. (Hansard, 10 September 1887)

§ MR. CLANCY (Dublin Co., N.)
said, he did not think it right that the Bill should be read a third time in this summary way without some explanation of its contents being given to the House. The Attorney General, who had sprung the Bill upon them, had stated on a previous occasion that the Bill had been discussed last Session, and that it had been considered by several Irish Members of Parliament.

§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER) (Isle of Wight)
I said the Bill was considered this Session.

§ MR. CLANCY
said, that so far as he recollected the Bill had never been discussed in the House, or, at any rate, he had never been present during its discussion, in spite of the fact that the Attorney General said that he (Mr. Clancy) had taken part in the discussion. He should like to move an Amendment to the 5th clause, and he had understood that such opportunity would be offered on the Report. He should like to know whether or not he would be entitled to move an Amendment.

§ MR. SPEAKER
I distinctly asked the House whether there were any Amendments to this Bill, and the hon. Member in charge of it said "No." Therefore, the next step was to put to the House the Question that the Bill be read a third time.

§ MR. CLANCY
May I move an Amendment now?

§ MR. SPEAKER
No Amendment can be moved now.

§ MR. CLANCY
said, in that case he must protest, by way of taking a Division, against the third reading of the Bill. The measure had been hurried through the House in the early hours of the morning.

§ MR. SPEAKER
Order, order ! The hon. Member is not entitled to go into that matter now. He is not discussing the Bill or anything connected with it.

§ MR. CLANCY
I was going to give some reasons—

§ MR. SPEAKER
; Order, order! I must warn the hon. Gentleman.

§ MR. CLANCY
said, he was only stating his reasons against taking the third reading now. He hoped he might be permitted to add that if he had had an opportunity he would have moved an Amendment to Clause 5, under which the period for registration was to be seven days. It appeared to him that that was a very short time to allow. This seemed to be a clause for filling the pockets of the lawyers with fees. On this ground and on other grounds he begged to move that the Bill should be read a third time on this day three months.

§ MR. SPEAKER
Does any one second that proposal?

§ DR. TANNER (Cork Co., Mid)
Yes, Sir, I do.

§ MR. COURTNEY
said, that perhaps he might be allowed to clear up a misapprehension which appeared to exist in the mind of the hon. Member. The hon. Member said that the Bill had only been brought in at early hours of the morning, and that it had not been discussed in that House at all. This Bill was a peculiar one. A Bill precisely the same word for word as the present Bill quitted the House of Commons early in the Session. It was discussed at considerable length, and the hon. Member for Kilkenny (Mr. Chance) took great interest in it, and co-operated largely with the hon. Member for Hull (Mr. King) and the Attorney General in bringing it to a third reading. The Bill went up to the House of Lords, but its promoters in this House were unaware of the necessity of getting some Peer to take it up and prosecute its progress in the other House. Along with one or two other Bills which went up to the House of Lords with the full concurrence of the House of Commons, it was delayed until after the time whoa it was possible for it to be taken by their Lordships. It therefore practically became a dropped Bill. In order that the 169 time and labour of this House might not be wasted, their Lordships apparently spontaneously brought in a new Bill word for word the same as the measure which had left the House of Commons. That Bill being passed in the House of Lords now came down to this House, and this House was now asked to go through what was perhaps an empty form, that of reasserting and reaffirming what was done at an early part of the Session. That was the excuse for the Bill being passed without explanation or consideration in the early hours of the morning, which the hon. Member complained of. The hon. Member would see that the House had had full knowledge of the Bill. As a matter of fact, the Bill was as much the work of the hon. Member for Kilkenny as of its original promoters. He trusted that the hon. Member would not persist in his Motion.

§ MR. SEXTON (Belfast, W.)
said, he also hoped that after the elaborate and courteous explanation of the hon. Gentleman the Chairman of Committees, for which they were all very thankful, his hon. Friend would withdraw his opposition, though that opposition had, in the absence of any explanation on the part of the Attorney General, been quite justified.

§ MR. CLANCY
said, that this discussion would have been obviated if the explanation given by the Chairman of Committees had been given at the outset by the Attorney General. It was part of the policy of Her Majesty's Government to—

§ MR. SPEAKER
Order, order ! The hon. Gentleman has no right of reply.