SECOND READING. (Hansard, 16 March 1893)

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR
This measure has been so often before your Lordships' House that I do not propose to trouble your Lordships with any detailed statement or arguments in support of it. It is, to put it shortly, a Bill to enable accused persons in criminal cases, or the husband or wife of an accused person respectively, if they so desire, to give evidence and be heard as witnesses. The measure has several times passed your Lordships' House, and I trust it may pass into law, for I am quite sure it embodies a most useful reform. There is hardly a week that one does not read complaints of persons who are not able to depose on oath to the facts as they allege them to be, and I am quite sure this will tend to the better administration of justice in this country, and will be an advantage to the accused persons who desire to give evidence, or the husband or wife of such person.

§ LORD ASHBOURNE
As my noble and learned Friend has pointed out, this is a matter which has been before your Lordships' House in several previous Sessions. I think the last occasion on which it was here was last year, It then passed through your Lordships' House with the approval, I think, of all those of your Lordships acquainted with legal procedure and methods. It went down from your Lordships' House in a different shape, that is it extended to Ireland. For every reason it was desirable to so extend it. We have there the same law, the same criminal system, the same Common Law. There is not a single argument in its favour here which would not apply, I venture to think, with far greater force to Ireland. But I am aware of the difficulties of transit which occurred with reference to this Bill. Some of the Irish Members, with whom I do not agree in politics, took the view that it was not desirable to extend it to Ireland. I do not go into the reasons which led them to that opinion, stating only the fact that with reference to that a controversy arose in Parliament, and an opinion was strongly expressed by Members of the House of Commons, with whom I agree, representing Irish constituencies, that they would not permit the Bill to pass if Ireland were omitted from it. It is quite obvious that with that state of opinion in the other House it is very difficult to suggest any method by which an easy transit could be secured for this change in the law. I, myself, hold very strongly the opinion I have expressed, though I feel the objection of those who desire the change for England that it is a little hard that England should be deprived of this change because there is a difference of opinion in Ireland. But I am confident that anyone acquainted with the methods and mechanisms of the House of Commons will know that if the Bill goes down in its present shape unaccompanied by any such change, or purporting to carry out a similar change in Ireland, it will have a very slender chance of passing Not at all in a controversial spirit, but only dealing with difficulties which are obvious to any one, I should suggest to my noble and learned Friend to consider, and I should be glad myself to consider, some method by which the difficulties I have 189 referred to might be met, so that this Bill may be presented in a shape to meet those difficulties, or else that it may be accompanied by another measure which would meet the objections I have referred to.

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR
I should be most happy to consider any method by which the difficulty alluded to by my noble and learned Friend can be got over. The truth is that this measure, which has been most strongly desired for England for five or six years past—it must be as long as that ago since the Bill first passed this House—has not passed into law because there is a great difference of opinion among Irish Members as to the expediency of its application to Ireland. It is a little hard, and I will go further and say I do not think it is altogether right, that in a matter of this sort, which is regarded by Members representing England as of great importance, and as affording to accused persons the means of defending themselves, should not have been for five years past the law in England because of this difference of opinion with regard to Ireland. Surely the best course would be to let it pass into law for England, and if it works well it will be more likely to appease those opposed to it as extended to Ireland, and to induce them to consent to a measure of this description for Ireland also. But I should regret, and my noble and learned Friend will agree with me, that this Bill should become a hotly contentious one. Unless we can get rid in some way or other of this controversy, it is hopeless to expect to see this amendment of the law made. I cannot help thinking there must be some way out of it by which this Bill should pass into law as regards England, satisfying those who represent England in the matter, leaving open the question of its application to Ireland for afterwards.