JOHN DALY. (Hansard, 15 August 1895)

§ MR. JOHN REDMOND (Waterford City)
said he recognised that in the motion that the learned Attorney General had made he had followed precedents set in similar cases in the past, and that it was merely a formal proceeding. But, at the same time, it was a first step in proceedings which had for their object to override the unanimous selection by the electors of Limerick of Mr. Daly as their Member. Therefore, although he admitted that precedent had so far been followed, and the matter before the House was more or less of a formal character which it would not be desirable to debate at any length, he, for his part, would enter his protest against this first step by dividing the House upon it.

§ DR. TANNER (Cork County, Mid)
said that, before a decision was arrived at, he would simply call the attention of the House to the indecorous behaviour of the Gentleman who was the Leader of the House—[Ministerial cries of "Order!"]—and of a right hon. Gentleman who sat beside him. [Renewed cries of "Order!"] If men stood up and tried to do their best for poor men who happened to be in prison—[Laughter]—this was no reason why right hon. Gentlemen who sat on 67 the Treasury Bench should snigger and sneer at them in an unbecoming way. [Irish cheers.]

* THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
I beg to move that the papers be printed and be taken into consideration next Monday.

§ DR. TANNER
I object. ["Order, order."]

§ MR. JOHN REDMOND
I should like to ask the Leader of the House whether, in the event of the Debate on the Address not being concluded by Monday, and having regard to the fact that one of the Amendments to the Address will be the subject of the advisability of extending an amnesty to Daly arid other persons, he will give an undertaking that the Motion with regard to Daly, of which this Motion is the prelude, should be adjourned.

§ THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR) (Manchester, E.)
I trust that the Debate on the Address will be over by Monday ["Hear, hear!" and cries of "Oh!"], but I will give the assurance which the hon. Gentleman asks for, and I may inform him and the House generally that we shall certainly not proceed with the Motion pointed to by the Motion of the Attorney General until the Debate on the Address is concluded. ["Hear, hear!"]

§ MR. T. M. HEALY (Louth, N.)
said he should like to know whether the Motion was in Order. The House had some reason to complain of the entire absence of explanation on the part of the Government in relation to this matter. The Attorney General had given a notice which apparently contemplated the fact that the Closure was to be put upon the Debate upon the Address to-morrow, and that the House would be able to proceed to discuss another Motion as the first Order of the day on Monday. Would not the Motion, therefore, if carried be used as an argument for Closuring the Debate on the Address? It was very unusual that a Motion of this kind should be made by the Attorney General without giving some precedents to justify the course proposed to be taken. He had always understood that when the House made an Order of the kind 68 proposed, that Order was the first Order of the Day. Yet the Leader of the House said the Government would not take it first, but would whisk it off at their own volition. What an extraordinary way to treat the House! In the first place, the Attorney-General got up and suggested that they should take the subject on Monday; then the Leader of the House got up, and in the airiest manner said they would not take that course at all. The proper Motion, in circumstances of this kind, was one which would enable the Government to make up their minds as to precedents of this kind. He begged to move that the Debate be now adjourned. [Cheers.]

§ MR. SWIFT MACNEILL (Donegal, S.)
seconded the motion.

§ THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY
I trust that the hon. and learned Gentleman will not press his Motion. The mind of the Government is expressed in the remarks I made just now. It is not in accordance with precedent, neither is it convenient, to interpolate into the middle of the Debate on the Address a discussion on some other subject. The hon. and learned Gentleman seems to suppose that I proposed to put the consideration of this matter down for Monday with a view to building up a case to closure the Debate on the Address. I can assure him that no such intention ever entered the head of any Member on this Bench. ["Hear, hear!"] We expressed a hope that two nights would be adequate for the Debate on the Address; but should that not prove the case, it would be in accordance with precedent that that Debate should continue on Monday, and, it may be, on Tuesday, though I do not contemplate such a possibility. I hope the hon. and learned Gentleman will feel that our sole desire has been to meet the wishes of the House, including those Members who sit near him, and that he will abstain from pressing his motion. [Cheers.]

§ MR. T. M. HEALY,
as a point, of order, asked the Speaker whether, if the Government Motion were agreed to, the discussion of the matter must not come on, necessarily, as the first Order on Monday.

§ * MR. SPEAKER
The Government can defer it or place it in what order they please. There is nothing out of order. [Ministerial cheers.]

§ MR. T. M. HEALY
Then is it necessary for the House to make any Order at all on the subject? [Cheers.]

§ * MR. SPEAKER
The Order is for the convenience of the House, but, when Monday comes, the Government can ask for a further postponement.

§ MR. SWIFT MACNEILL
asked whether it would be out of order to interpolate such a discussion into the Debate on the Address. In 1885 the Debate on the Queen's Speech was adjourned to discuss a battle in the Soudan.

§ * Mr. SPEAKER
There is no suggestion of interpolating this discussion into the Debate on the Queen's Speech. Does the hon. and learned Member persist in his Motion for adjournment?

§ MR. T. M. HEALY
said he did not wish to inconvenience the House.