HC Deb 10 December 1888 vol 331 cc1731-2

Order for resuming Adjourned Debate on Second Reading [10th August] read.

MR. T. M. HEALY (Longford, N.)

said, he understood this Bill was not to be proceeded with this Session.


took the opportunity of saying the Government were extremely sorry that hon. Members had felt so strongly against this Bill, which, as he had previously said, did not alter the number or salaries of existing magistrates. The Bill was introduced to redeem a distinct pledge given to the Public Accounts Committee. The Government were most anxious to carry out their pledge, and the responsibility of failure must rest upon hon. Gentlemen opposite.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Order be discharged."

MR. LANE (Cork Co., E.)

said, he did not think the hon. Member could saddle Irish Members with the responsibility. It was well known that successive Governments, for the past three or four years, had given the same pledge to the Committee of Public Accounts; but if a Government were really determined to pass a Bill, why did they not bring it on on the working days of the Session, when, of course, with their majority, they could push it through, instead of leaving it to the tail-end of the Session. There were matters of principle in the Bill that needs must be discussed, although no expenditure was involved. He repudiated any responsibility for the Bill not being carried through.


said, he would not go into the question of how the time of the Session had been wasted; he was ready to admit that at this stage the Government were not responsible for the loss of the Bill. But the hon. Gentleman should know that Irish Members objected to Divisional Magistrates as a class, and as individuals, and they objected to an increase in salaries for them. The Bill, whenever it came on, must be subject to special discussion, which, at that time of the Session, it was obvious it could not receive.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill withdrawn.