SECOND READING. (Hansard, 2 September 1880)

§ THE EARL OF REDESDALE (CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES)
said, he had no objection to the passing of this Bill, as it really was a Money Bill, and no objection was ever taken by their Lordships' House to Money Bills on account of the lateness of the period of the Session at which they came up from the House of Commons. Their Lordships might remember that a few years ago there was an Order which used to be moved to the effect that after a certain day no Bill should be received from the other House of Parliament unless it was urgent or a Money Bill; but with regard to the Registration of Voters (Ireland) Bill to which he yesterday took a course which had been strongly objected to, it was not urgent and it was not a Money Bill. It had been said that the Bill was merely intended to equalize the law as it related to England and Ireland; but this was not exactly the case, as the measure embodied proposals which were not contained in the English law. He must also remind their Lordships that the Bill 1020 contained one point which their Lordships had rejected so far back as 1873. That being so, he thought the House was justified in rejecting a measure which, at that late period of the Session, they had not the time to thoroughly consider. The Government had urged yesterday, as a reason for passing this Bill, that they ought to do so because it was an Irish Bill; but he said there was no reason why an Irish Bill should receive different treatment in that House from an English Bill or any other Bill. They had been too much in the habit of dealing with Ireland as if she had a number of real grievances, and that mode of treatment had increased the belief that Ireland was a much injured country. During the whole of this Session they had had nothing but Irish Bills for the relief of the Irish distress and other measures for the good of that country, and to say that the House of Lords would not consider measures which were proposed for the good of Ireland was utterly and entirely false and beside the subject. With regard to the rejection of the Registration of Voters (Ireland) Bill, he would ask leave to mention that, upon the very occasion upon which their Lordships came to the conclusion to throw out that Bill, there was a Notice of Motion lying upon the Table of the House of Commons to the effect that it was no longer just or expedient that all measures improving the condition of the people of England, Ireland, and Scotland should be at the mercy of a body of legislators who were hereditary and irresponsible. There never was a more insulting Motion put on the Table of one House of Parliament as directed against the other.

§ EARL GRANVILLE
said, that the noble Earl appeared to him to be going against every principle of Order in that House. He was discussing a Motion which he most unfortunately induced the House to pass yesterday, and adding to that remarks upon a Motion which which had been considered in another House.

§ THE EARL OF REDESDALE (CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES)
said, he was not discussing yesterday's proceedings, but was simply making an explanation. He had been strongly attacked for the course which he pursued, and was simply offering an explanation of his conduct. If that House were to have all sorts of charges 1021 brought against it because it exercised its independent judgment, it was time to take notice of, and express an opinion upon such a course. The great charge brought against their Lordships' House was that it had rejected the Compensation for Disturbance (Ireland) Bill; but charges of that kind ought not to prevent their Lordships from acting as they felt they ought to do.

§ EARL GRANVILLE
said, the course of the noble Lord was certainly irregular; but it was natural that he should wish to defend the step which he took yesterday, and which had been universally condemned. Lord Beaconsfield certainly voted with the noble Earl; but it would be interesting to know whether he counselled the course that was taken, inasmuch as it was a proceeding entirely opposed to the wise advice which Lord Beaconsfield gave a few days before in reference to another Bill. The noble Lord had defended his course because there had been once a Sessional Order of their Lordships' House against proceeding with any measure sent up from the other House after a certain date unless it was connected with finance, or was in some other respect of an urgent character. He (Earl Granville) perfectly well remembered the Order which used to be proposed by the noble Lord himself; but it was at last found that the Order was constantly broken down, and was generously so inconvenient in practice that the noble Lord himself gave up moving that Order. That argument, therefore, was of no avail. The noble Earl said that he wished Irish Bills to be treated exactly as English Bills were treated. That was exactly what he (Earl Granville) wished; but he thought it conveyed a very unfortunate impression to the people of Ireland that a Bill should now be rejected, the principle of which was admitted to be unobjectionable, and the first object of which was to assimilate the Irish law to that of England. It was much to be regretted that three Bills relating to Ireland should in succession have been rejected. He had to thank the noble Earl that he was not going to the extreme point of stopping even financial Bills which came up to their Lordships' House.