(1) The provisions of Sections one to four inclusive, Sections seven to twelve inclusive, Sub-section (1) of Section sixteen, Sections seventeen to twenty-one inclusive, Section twenty-three, Sub-section (2) of Section twenty-four, Sections twenty-five and twenty-six, Sub-sections (2), (3), and (4) of Section twenty-seven, and Section twenty-eight of this Act shall apply to Ireland, subject to the following modifications, namely:—
(2) A Court of Summary Jurisdiction, in fixing the amount of any fine to be imposed on an offender, shall take into consideration, amongst other things, the means of the offender so far as they appear or are known to the Court.
(3) Proceedings for the recovery in a summary manner of a penalty for an offence under the Births and Deaths Registration Act (Ireland), 1880, may be commenced at any time within three years after the commission of the offence.
(4) Where upon summary conviction an offender is adjudged to pay a penalty exceeding five pounds, the offender in case of non-payment thereof may without any warrant of distress be committed to prison for any term not exceeding the period for which he might be committed to prison in default of distress: Provided that where time is not allowed for the payment of the penalty a warrant of commitment shall not be issued in the first instance unless it appears to the Court that the offender has no goods or insufficient goods to satisfy the penalty, or that the levy of distress would be more injurious to him or his family than imprisonment.
(5) Upon any information or complaint laid or made before a divisional justice of the police district of Dublin metropolis of an offence punishable on summary conviction, if the person charged resides within the limits of that district, the justice shall, notwithstanding that the offence has been or is alleged to have been committed outside those limits, have all the like powers, jurisdiction, and authority as he has upon an information or complaint laid or made of a similar offence committed or alleged to have been committed within those limits.
(6) So much of Section twenty-two of the Petty Sessions (Ireland) Act, 1851, as relates to the liability of persons aiding, abetting, counselling, or procuring the commission of offences punishable on summary conviction shall, as amended by any subsequent enactment, extend to the police district of Dublin metropolis; and every person who aids, abets, counsels, or procures the commission of any such offence may be proceeded against and convicted in that district in any case where the principal offender may be convicted in that district, or where the offence of aiding, abetting, counselling, or procuring was committed in that district.
(7) Section three (which relates to boards of visitors for convict prisons), Section six (which relates to divisions of prisoners), Section eleven (which relates to orders for production of prisoners), and, so far as respects sentences of imprisonment passed after the commencement of this Act, Section twelve (which relates to calculation of term of sentence) of the Prison Act, 1898, shall, as amended by this Act, extend to Ireland subject to the following modifications, namely:—
(8) For removing doubts it is declared that in Section twenty-four of the General Prisons (Ireland) Act, 1877, and Section three of the Prisons (Ireland) Amendment Act, 1884 (which relate to visiting committees of prisons), the expressions "grand jury" and "grand juries" respectively, include, in the case of the county of Dublin, a grand jury of that county impanelled at a commission of oyer and terminer and general gaol delivery.
(9) The Lord Chancellor may make rules for the purposes of this Act regulating the procedure to be followed, and prescribing the forms to be used in summary proceedings and adapting to the requirements of this Act any forms relating to summary proceedings prescribed by or in pursuance of any other Act, and all rules so made shall be laid as soon as may be before both Houses of Parliament.
(10) Where a person convicted of an offence by a Court of Summary Jurisdiction is committed to prison by the Court under Section ten of this Act without sentence he may appeal under the Summary Jurisdiction Acts against the conviction, and the provisions of those Acts with respect to appeals shall apply accordingly in like manner as if the conviction were an order for a term of imprisonment exceeding one month and the committal were a committal in execution of such order:
Provided that the time for serving notice of appeal shall run from the date of the committal, and the Appellate Court., if it confirms the conviction, shall have power to pass the like sentence and to deal with the case in the like manner in all respects as if the offender had been brought before it for sentence in pursuance of the said Section.
(11) Save as provided in this Section, the foregoing provisions of this Act shall not extend to Ireland.
I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), to leave out the words "Sub-section (2) of."The Sub-section declares that Subsection (2) of Clause 24 shall apply to Ireland. There is no Sub-section (2) of Clause 24. If the right hon. Gentleman will look at the Bill he will see that Section 24 has only one Sub-section.
That is quite right.
I am rather inclined to doubt whether the Clause really deals with Clause 24 at all. I think it pointed at some other Clause which had two Sub-sections in it, of which the numbering was changed in the course of the proceedings in Committee. I have been unable to find what Clause the words pointed to.
I beg to second the Amendment, which shows how much we need the assistance of someone from Ireland. The hon. and learned Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Rawlinson) said just now that we were not at a disadvantage owing to the absence of the Irish Law Officers. We are at a great disadvantage, and if they were in the House this would not have occurred.
The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Maurice Healy) is perfectly right in his conjecture. Owing to the alteration in the numbering of the Clauses in Clause 43 as it now stands the references are not, in every ease, to the Clause which was intended.
Are they right in any case?
What I said was a strictly accurate representation of the fact. They are not in every case properly applicable to the Clause mentioned. I was aware of the fact, and proposed to have the necessary alterations moved in another place, because, owing to the suddenness with which the Bill has been brought forward, I have not been able to get the advantage of the technical advice of a lawyer from Ireland. I understood that the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. T. M. Healy) accepted my explanation on that point earlier in the evening and I undertook then that all the earlier Amendments should be moved in another place. By that procedure this House does not lose control of the Amendments, because the Bill will come back again with the necessary Amendments made.
Thank God we have a House of Lords.
Shall we say a Second Chamber? I can only make this appeal to the mercy of the hon. and learned Gentleman. I quite admit that had I been aware earlier that this Bill would have come on to-day, I should have taken steps to be provided with the assistance of an Irish legal adviser, and I would suggest, therefore, if agreeable to the hon. Member, that he would be so good as to accept the course which I suggest, and postpone the consideration of the Amendments to Clause 43, and then reconsider them here when the Bill comes back from another place. That would save a great deal of time if we conclude the remainder of the proceedings on the Bill this evening, because I quite admit that if the hon. and learned Gentleman insists on his rights, he is fairly entitled to an answer on all his points on Clause 43, and I frankly admit that I am not in a position now to give him an answer.
Does that apply to Clause 42?
No, Clause 42 was right.
I also join in the right hon. Gentleman's appeal. We are only playing a farce to-night, and the best thing we can do is to let the Government take this Order Paper to whom they please, and I suppose we shall have the Bill back again, and shall then get really to business. I do not take the view of thanking God that there is another place, because my view is that if there had not been a Second Chamber the Government would have attended to their duty properly, and had the Bill ready to-night. The moral I draw is quite the opposite. So long as they know that there is another place where everything can be put right, so long will they come here with slipshod ideas in order that we may deal with it after its return journey. Hon. Members think that when it goes to the other place, they can finish it off properly. The Home Secretary says it will still have to come back here, and we must keep the upper hand over the other place. I think those who have taken any interest in the Bill, especially Scottish Members, had better save their breath to blow their porridge with. The Scottish Amendments are not even on the Paper, and now the Home Secretary himself will not take any responsibility upon these important things, and pleads ad misericordiam to us to let the Bill pass anyhow, and then let it pass away to the Second Chamber. In answer to that appeal, I suggest that we take no further part in the discussion.
I quite agree with the hon. Member opposite—that this shows the utility of the House of Lords and the uselessness of the Government. But I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman another question. As I understand, we are in a difficulty now because the right hon. Gentleman has not been able to obtain the presence of two Irish Law Officers. Therefore, he suggests that as he knows nothing about Irish law, it should be referred to the other place, where presumably there will be two Irish Law Officers whose advice can be obtained. Are the two Irish Law Officers members of the other place? If they are not, what is the use of sending the Bill to another place where they are not members?
That was not quite the point. I was only making a personal appeal, because I am not, without advice, sufficiently familiar with Irish law to be able to answer the Amendments. I have not been able to get technical advice from an Irish lawyer. He need not be a Member of the House. When I get such advice, I think I shall be able to master the subject sufficiently to explain the Clauses. For the present I appeal to hon. Members not to press their Amendments.
Is the right hon. Gentleman going to another place in order to obtain this advice from the Law Officers, because I do not see where we are advantaged? Apparently there are no Irish Law Officers in this House or in the other place, but the right hon. Gentleman will find an Irishman somewhere or other who has something to do with the law, and I presume he will pay him a fee, and will learn something about it. But what is the use of referring to the other place? Neither the right hon. Gentleman nor the Irish Law Officers would be in the other place, nor the Irish barrister whom he may succeed in finding, and who will take a fee out of the pockets of the taxpayers. The result of this merely is that the Government has muddled the business all the way through. Knowing they have no Law Officers to consult, the right hon. Gentleman appeals to us ad misericordiam and says, "I do not know anything about it. If I could have found an Irishman who knew something about the law, I should have been able to say something about it," and in order to shuffle it out of the way he suggests that he shall refer it to another place. I am not surprised at the indignation of the hon. Member (Mr. Booth) at such a proceeding when we have been told over and over again that the House of Lords ought to be abolished, and to all intents and purposes it is abolished. I think the Government will be abolished if they go on in this way. I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to postpone his Clauses altogether until he can find some Irish barrister and take the other three or four Orders that we have agreed to take. Surely hon. Members opposite had better find someone to give advice to the right hon. Gentleman, and that we shall discuss these matters in the House, than it should be committed to a place which by the consent of everyone opposite is not fit to legislate in the interests of the democracy.
I am pleased to find, on both sides of the House, a feeling of regret that there are not enough lawyers in the House of Commons.
The hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury) never loses any opportunity of making a party point in any discussion that we have. Whose fault is it that this matter has come on to-day? The Second Chamber has made a mess of something else.
It is not in order to discuss the action of another place.
I do not see how I can yield to the appeal which the right hon. Gentleman has made. The Clause as it stands is nonsense. If the right hon. Gentleman could tell me what he means to put in, I might accede to his request.
We will certainly accede to the Amendment now, but it is obvious that I am not in a position to explain all the other changes without going through them, and that would take an unnecessary length of time.
I wish to point out that the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) has been too generous in this matter. He raised quite a false issue when he suggested that the absence of Irish lawyers has paralysed the right hon. Gentleman's energies on this Bill. We have always had a lack of Irish lawyers in this House when this Government has been in power. This is not a matter requiring expert knowledge of Irish law. It is a mere question of draftsmanship. It is a question on which an English or Scottish lawyer might advise the Government as well as an Irish lawyer. This Section refers to Sub-section (2) of Section 24 of another Statute. That is not a question of Irish law. The hon. and learned Gentleman below the Gangway says with diffidence but sincerity that he is not at all sure about the Sub-section referred to. That is not a question of Irish law. It is a question of substance. It is a question on which ordinary business skill alone is required. This House has been deprived of a very great deal of opportunity for discussing measures by the use of various devices, but I do not think we have ever reached such an absurdity as we are solemnly invited to take part in to-night by the Home Secretary, namely, to send this Bill in a chaotic condition, in an unintelligible muddle, to another place, to be put right there. Was ever a deliberative Assembly in any country reduced to such a position? The responsible Minister, when he comes to Section 43, says that he does not know what to do to make it intelligible, and so he offers to send it to another place to have it made intelligible. A more monstrous curtailment of our liberties has not been known. If we cannot discuss proposals, we should know what the proposals are intended to do. Sometimes we cannot discuss them because time is taken away from us, but to-night we cannot discuss them because we are not allowed to operate our brains upon them. It is not a question of time. We have an unusual amount of time. The Clause is not intelligible, and the responsible Minister cannot tell us what should be done to make it intelligible. I beg to move, "That the Debate be now adjourned."
I beg to second the Motion. I do not think the Home Secretary can complain of our action on this Bill. We have been most accommodating. We have done all we can to facilitate the passage of the Bill. We have given up Amendments over and over again, and directly we come to the Scottish Clauses we find the Lord Advocate moving Amendments of a highly technical nature, although he has not given notice of them. On Clause 43 we cannot get the opinion of the Irish Law Officers. I do not doubt that the Irish Law Officers are amply remunerated. We ought to have them in the Gallery in order to afford the necessary information. They ought really to be in the House, if, indeed, they could get seats. I venture to think that the House is entitled to protest, as the Member for Pontefract (Mr. Booth) has protested, against being called upon to continue the discussion of the Bill which the Government themselves admit is absolutely unintelligible. All the arguments and materials for defending the Bill should have been ready last week. Even the Home Secretary put down his Amendments as late as Friday last. In these circumstances, and in view of the hopeless muddle into which the House has got, especially in relation to this Bill, I beg to second the Motion.
I do not in the least complain that certain exaggerated language should be used in relation to the position in which I find myself in having to ask the House not to consider particular Amendments on Clause 43. I do not complain of the criticism of hon. Members. If I were sitting where they are at the present moment I might have been very much disposed to use similar arguments, but we must not forget what the circumstances really are. The Clauses in the Bill, owing to Amendments in Committee have been renumbered. Clause 43 applying certain parts of the Bill to Ireland refers to the Clauses, and any expert Irish lawyer going through the provisions could see what Clauses are referred to
We have not all got copies of the Bill. [An HON. MEMBER: "They are run out."]
That is not my fault. The necessary alteration has got to be made on Report, and—
Why was not that done in Committee? I have been told frequently, when I moved consequential Amendments in the Committee stage of the Bill, that it was not necessary, as it was done automatically.
My hon. and learned Friend is perfectly right. When they merely involve a matter of printing they would be amended by the printer. In this case that is not so. A number of Clauses have been altered in this way, and Amendments, in consequence, have to be moved.
The Clerk of the Committee should have done it.
I do not agree with that, but in any event, he has not done so. I have not been able to get the advice of an Irish lawyer as to what are the Amendments which should be made in the circumstances. Therefore I have asked that these Amendments, which are purely formal, should be allowed to stand over, I have no doubt that the House will agree that this is a purely formal matter. There is one very important point raised by the Member for North-East Cork which is not a mere formal matter. That is the question why the right of appeal is not extended to Ireland. Upon that point I have to regret that I had not the advice of an expert Irish lawyer to know why in Committee this right of appeal was not extended to Ireland. I undertook that if it were a mere formal omission I would correct that omission in another place. I understood that the hon. and learned Member accepted that. These matters are only formal matters. I would suggest, therefore, that we should be allowed to continue and dispose of the Bill, which every section of the House is anxious to pass into law. We all know what the state of the business is at this stage of the Session, and it would only keep Members here unnecessarily to insist on pressing the Motion.
I do not complain of the tone of the Home Secretary's remarks, but he has admitted that he is suffering from very grievous disability. Here is a Bill making most important changes in the law. You pass a series of Clauses which are unintelligible to ordinary Irishmen, applying to England, and then you have an omnibus Clause saying, "Clauses so-and-so shall apply to Ireland," and when we come to that Clause nearly every figure in it is wrong. The Amendment of my hon. Friend simply points to the nonsense of the Clause. Here we have a Grand Committee dealing with Ireland, which leaves the Irish Criminal Law, to which Irishmen must pay some attention, in such a condition that if attention had not been drawn to it here, the whole thing would be a conglomeration of nonsense. That is an appalling state of affairs. I do not attribute any blame to the right hon. Gentleman. On the contrary. I am rather in sympathy with him. At the same time, this Clause does make these changes. There is somebody in charge of the Irish Office and he should be here. Is there any reason under Heaven why the law of larceny in Ireland should not be the same as in England? You alter the law of larceny in an important way by Section 39, in which you provide:—
Why should not that apply to Ireland? Why is there no supervising authority for revising these cases in Grand Committee? If that particular Clause is useful in England it should be applied to our country. I would respectfully propose that both the right of appeal Clause and the larceny Clause should be applied to Ireland, and I will tell you why. When the Bill comes back from the House of Lords we may not be here. It will be late in the Session. An appeal may be made by someone absolutely ignorant of the position, who will ask, "Are you going to lose this valuable Bill?" When we get a day unexpectedly for the passage of this Bill, I think that Irish Members are entitled to take advantage of it. Accordingly, while I hope the proposal for adjournment will be withdrawn, I do hope the right hon. Gentleman, who is a very competent lawyer himself, will deal with these two points."Where a prisoner is arraigned on an indictment for any offence, and can lawfully be convicted on such indictment of some other offence not charged in such indictment, he may plead not guilty of the offence charged in the indictment, but guilty of such other offence."
If the Motion is withdrawn, I shall be in a position to move the necessary Amendments.
Not only is the right hon. Gentleman unable to give us a description of the Amendment on the particular Clause in question, but it is impossible to get in the Vote Office either a copy of the Bill or a copy of the Amendments. The right hon. Gentleman admits that up to the present moment he knew nothing about this particular Clause, but owing to some unforeseen circumstances he is now able to know something about them. I want to know what is going to happen to all the rest of the House who are unable to get a Bill, or even to get the Amendments. We have got very far on with the Bill, and it is absurd continuing to discuss it in the circumstances.
I do not think the Government will gain anything by going on with this Bill to-night. To say that my right hon. Friend is determined to go on and dispose of this Bill is a very erroneous phrase to use. We admit that it will have to go to another place and come back, and there is no such thing as disposing of it to-night in any final sense. The excuse the right hon. Gentleman gave was that there are no Irish Law Officers here. I do not know them by sight; perhaps they are whispering something from that ventilation shaft by the Table. Is there some magician about? I am told by my hon. Friend behind me that the Irish Law Officers are sitting under the Gallery. They do not look like Irish lawyers. I do not know where they are. I would point out that the hon. Member for Cork City referred to Sub-section (2) of Clause 37, and when we go to that Clause we find there is no Sub-section (2), nor Sub-sections (3) and (4) at the present time. Yet we are told that we must plough our way through, and leave the matter to another place. I am a democrat and a Radical, and I was never taught any such doctrine, and I am not going to take it from my own Government. Parts of the Bill are before us in such a way that nobody knows their meaning, and Radicals are asked to deny what they advocate on public platforms by sending the Bill to the House of Lords to be put right. That is not the sort of doctrine for the hon. Member for North Sal-ford (Sir W. Byles), stern and unbending Radical, yet that is what we are treated to to-night. There are minor measures of a non-controversial character which could
Division No. 187.]
|Agg-Gardner, James Tynte||Hamilton, C. G. C. (Ches., Altrincham)||Rutherford, Watson (L'pool, W. Derby)|
|Baird, John Lawrence||Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)||Sanders, Robert Arthur|
|Banbury, Sir Frederick George||Herbert, Hon. A. (Somerset, S.)||Spear, Sir John Ward|
|Barnston, Harry||Hibbert, Sir Henry F.||Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)|
|Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)||Hills, John Waller||Starkey, John Ralph|
|Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish-||Hogge, James Myles||Stewart, Gershom|
|Bigland, Alfred||Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy||Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)|
|Bird, Alfred||Hope, Hary (Bute)||Talbot, Lord Edmund|
|Booth, Frederick Handel||Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)||Thomas-Stanford, Charles|
|Bridgeman, William Clive||Horner, Andrew Long||Thynne, Lord Alexander|
|Bull, Sir William James||Lane-Fox, G. R.||Watson, Hon. W.|
|Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred||Lloyd, George Butler (Shrewsbury)||Watt, Henry Anderson|
|Cassel, Felix||Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)||Wedgwood, Josiah C.|
|Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)||M'Calmont, Major Robert C. A.||Weigall, Captain A. G.|
|Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W.||Malcolm, Ian||Weston, Colonel J. W.|
|Clyde, J. Avon||Markham, Sir Arthur Basil||Wheler, Granville C. H.|
|Craik, Sir Henry||Newton, Harry Kottingham||White, Major G. D. (Lancs., Southport)|
|Denniss, E. R. B.||Nield, Herbert||Wood, Hon. E. F. L. (Yorks, Ripon)|
|Duke, Henry Edward||Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A.||Wood, John (Stalybridge)|
|Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.||Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)||Yate, Colonel C. E.|
|Faber, George Denison (Clapham)||Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)||Younger, Sir George|
|Fell, Arthur||Pollock, Ernest Murray|
|Gilmour, Captain John||Pringle, William M. R.|
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.
|Glazebrook, Captain Philip K.||Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.||Norman Craig and Captain Wilson.|
|Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)||Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel|
|Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)||Delany, William||Hinds, John|
|Acland, Francis Dyke||Devlin, Joseph||Hodge, John|
|Adkins, Sir W. Ryland D.||Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott||Holt, Richard Durning|
|Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R.||Dillon, John||Howard, Hon. Geoffrey|
|Ainsworth, John Stirling||Donelan, Captain A.||Hudson, Walter|
|Alien, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire)||Doris, William||Hughes, Spencer Leigh|
|Armitage, Robert||Duffy, William J.||Illingworth, Percy H.|
|Arnold, Sydney||Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)||Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)|
|Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)||Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)||Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)|
|Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)||Elverston, Sir Harold||Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)|
|Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick Burghs)||Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)||Jones, Leif (Notts, Rushcliffe)|
|Barran, Rowland Hurst (Leeds, N.)||Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)||Joyce, Michael|
|Beauchamp, Sir Edward||Farrell, James Patrick||Kelly, Edward|
|Benn, W. W. (T. Hamlets, St. George)||Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles||Kilbride, Denis|
|Black, Arthur W.||Ffrench, Peter||King, J.|
|Boland, John Plus||Field, William||Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)|
|Bowerman, Charles W.||Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward||Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)|
|Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)||Fitzgibbon, John||Levy, Sir Maurice|
|Brady, Patrick Joseph||Flavin, Michael Joseph||Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert|
|Brunner, John F. L.||Furness, Sir Stephen Wilson||Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)|
|Bryce, J. Annan||Gladstone, W. G. C.||Lundon, Thomas|
|Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas||Glanville, Harold James||Lynch, Arthur Alfred|
|Byles, Sir William Pollard||Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford||Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)|
|Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)||Goldstone, Frank||Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)|
|Cawley, Harold T. (Lancs., Heywood)||Greig, Colonel J. W.||Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.|
|Chapple, Dr. William Allen||Griffith, Rt. Hon. Ellis Jones||MacNeill, J. G. Swift (Donegal, South)|
|Clancy, John Joseph||Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset. E.)||MacVeagh, Jeremiah|
|Clough, William||Gulland, John William||McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald|
|Clynes, John R.||Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)||Marks, Sir George Croydon|
|Collins, Sir Stephen (Lambeth)||Hackett, John||Marshall, Arthur Harold|
|Campton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.||Hancock, John George||Meagher, Michael|
|Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.||Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)||Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)|
|Cowan, W. H.||Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)||Meehan, Patrick J. (Queen's Co., Leix)|
|Crooks, William||Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)||Millar, James Duncan|
|Crumley, Patrick||Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)||Mollay, Michael|
|Cullinan, John||Haslam, Lewis||Molteno, Percy Alport|
|Dalziel, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H. (Kirkcaldy)||Hayden, John Patrick||Morison, Hector|
|Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)||Helme, Sir Nerval Watson||Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert|
|Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)||Hemmerde, Edward George||Murphy, Martin J.|
|Davies, Timothy (Lines., Louth)||Henry, Sir Charles||Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)|
|Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)||Hewart, Gordon||Nolan, Joseph|
|Dawes, James Arthur||Higham, John Sharp||Nugent, Sir Walter Richard|
be proceeded with, and I think the Debate should be now adjourned.
Question put, "That the Debate be now adjourned."
The House divided: Ayes, 71; Noes, 195.
|O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)||Redmond, William (Clare, E.)||Taylor, John W. (Durham)|
|O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)||Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)||Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)|
|O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)||Rendall, Athelstan||Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)|
|O'Doherty, Philip||Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)||Thomas, James Henry|
|O'Donnell, Thomas||Roberts, George H. (Norwich)||Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)|
|O'Dowd, John||Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)||Thorne, William (West Ham)|
|O'Malley, William||Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)||Toulmin, Sir George|
|O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)||Robinson, Sidney||Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)|
|O'Shaughnessy, P. J.||Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)||Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)|
|O'Sullivan, Timothy||Roche, Augustine (Louth)||Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)|
|Palmer, Godfrey Mark||Ree, Sir Thomas||White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)|
|Parker, James (Halifax)||Rowlands, James||White, Patrick (Meath, North)|
|Parry, Thomas H.||Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.||Wiles, Thomas|
|Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham)||Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)||Wilkie, Alexander|
|Phillips, John (Longford, S.)||Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)||Williams, Aneurin (Durham, N. W.)|
|Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.||Scanlan, Thomas||Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)|
|Pratt, J. W.||Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)||Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs., N.)|
|Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)||Sheehy, David||Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)|
|Primrose, Hon. Neil James||Sherwell, Arthur James||Wing, Thomas Edward|
|Radford, George Heynes||Shortt, Edward||Yeo, Alfred William|
|Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)||Smith, Albert (Lanes., Clitheroe)||Yoxall, Sir James Henry|
|Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)||Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)|
|Reddy, Michael||Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert|
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.
|Redmond, John E. (Waterford)||Sutton, John E.||W. Jones and Mr. Webb.|
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I beg to move, in Subsection (1), to leave out the words "Sub-section (1) of Section seventeen," and to insert instead thereof "Section sixteen."With this Amendment the Clause will read, "Sections sixteen to twenty-one inclusive."
If the Adjournment had not been moved, and opportunity given, wrong legislation would have been made, and it is only because of the action taken that the right hon. Gentleman is able to correct it.
If it is any satisfaction to the hon. Gentleman, may I say I think his efforts to-night will lead to the dropping of the Plumage Bill.
Amendment agreed to.
I beg to move, in Subsection (1), to leave out the words "Section twenty-three, Sub-section (2) of Section twenty-four, Sections twenty-five and twenty-six, Sub-sections (2), (3), and (4) of Section twenty-seven, and Section twenty-eight," and to insert instead thereof the words "Section twenty-four. Sub-section (2) of Section twenty-five, Sections twenty-six and twenty-seven, Sub-sections (2), (3), and (4) of Section twenty-eight, Sections thirty-five and thirty-nine, and Sub-section (1) of Section forty-one."By this Amendment I propose to omit all the reference numbers, and insert the true reference numbers relating to the Bill as it is now presented. We mean the same Clauses, but the numbers were wrong because the numbers of the Clauses were changed.
This Amendment meets my point to some extent, because the right hon. Gentleman is inserting certain Sections, but he is deliberately omitting Section 37, about which we are mainly anxious. Therefore, as the Amendment stands, I must respectfully object to it. In England, for a generation, there has been a right of appeal from all fines and imprisonments. Since the present Liberal Government came into office various Attorney-Generals have declared that at the first opportunity that right would be extended to Ireland. In Ireland any magistrate may give a man a month's imprisonment with hard labour, and there is no appeal. You are proposing to assimilate the law in the two countries, and yet, although the question has been raised three times, the Government, while admitting that the Clause is entirely wrong in point of form, persist in leaving the Irish law in this objectionable form. During the strike in Dublin great complaint was made because Labour men were sent to prison without appeal by stipendiary magistrates. In Ireland you can have more than one charge in one summons, with the result that a man may get one month's imprisonment on one section, another month on a second, and another on a third, or three months altogether without appeal. Although I condemned many matters in connection with the strike, it appeared to me on many occasions that the working men got hard measure. They were in the hands of a single magistrate, and there was no appeal to the Recorder or to any other Court. Whenever a sentence was given of such a character as to enable the Recorder to deal with it, he invariably varied the sentence. When we are told that we are on the eve of Home Rule, is the Irish law to be permitted to remain in this inequitable, unjust, and really inconsequential condition? When the present Lord Justice Cherry sat on the Front Bench opposite, and was appealed to to make this change in the Irish law, he always answered that he was quite in sympathy with the change, but there was no time to carry it out. Now you have a whole day, which would otherwise have been devoted to the Irish Bill, and we simply ask that this provision should be included in the Irish section. Let me read to the House what I ask to have extended to Ireland:—
I quite understand that the insertion of Clause 37 in this Irish Clause is not the happiest mode of dealing with the matter. But surely it is quite easy by a subsequent Amendment containing the necessary modifications, or whatever the legal consequences may be, to effect our purpose. Therefore, unless the right hon. Gentleman assures me that he will accept this Amendment, or will deal with it in another place, I shall be compelled to go to a Division. This is a matter which has been a standing grievance in Ireland for many years. I do say, therefore, that it will be illiberal on the part of the Liberal Government, and unlabourlike, unsympathetic, and unfriendly, if this Amendment is not now made. I would suggest this to the Government, let them propose part of the Clause, but do not let that have the effect of shutting me out from moving the inclusion of Clause 37. I would therefore ask the right hon. Gentleman to allow me to move an Amendment to his Amendment—which is not a very easy process, as I have got this Amendment by me, it only, I think, exists in manuscripts—or let the Debate be adjourned so that the Government may see about the matter. There is no Irish lawyer that would support a proposition contrary to what I submit; not one, I think. The whole trend of legal opinion in Ireland is in favour of my suggestion."Any person aggrieved by any conviction of a Court of Summary Jurisdiction in respect of any offence who did not plead guilty or admit the truth of the information may appeal from the conviction in manner provided by the Summary Jurisdiction Acts to a Court of Quarter Sessions."
The hon. and learned Gentleman will possibly accept this from me: I will agree that Clause 37 in the Bill be made applicable to Ireland, on the condition that if I subsequently find that either in form or substance the inclusion is a mistake, that then I should be free to agree to its being cut out in another place. The hon. and learned Gentleman would then have the opportunity of re-raising the question in this House, because that can only be done by the omission of Amendments in the other House. Under those conditions I will accept his Amendment to my Amendment to include Clause 37.
I not only accept, but thank the right hon. Gentleman.
I would like to point out the way in which this matter stands. It is a matter of some consequence. The Home Secretary was not prepared to discuss this Clause at all earlier, because he had not the Irish Law Officers, and could not get—
No, no; the hon. Member must not say that.
I am speaking in the recollection of the House.
I never mentioned Irish Law Officers. I said that I had no expert legal advisers; but before the division was taken on the hon. Members motion, the papers had come to me with the requisite changes made, and I have now consequently been able to move them in the House.
I accept what the right hon. Gentleman says, that the Paper has come to him, and that he has acted upon it—in part only; and in part from what has fallen from hon. Members below the Gangway. But what is the position of the House? Then we were not in a position to discuss the Section. Now the right hon. Gentleman says we are in a position to discuss it, and how does he discuss it? He says, "I do not know whether it is right or wrong, but instead of altering what I am not sure is right or wrong, we will get it altered afterwards." It may be right or wrong, but it can be altered. The thing is as broad as it is long. He might as well have said, "We will put the whole of the rubbish in and have it altered afterwards." It is a pretty way of legislating. Let me point out this to the right hon. Gentleman. He is accepting this Amendment to include Clause 37, but the Summary Jurisdiction Act does not apply to Ireland. You will have to make other alterations; make the Petty Sessional Act of 1851 take the place of the Summary Jurisdiction Act—
That is so.
Of course, that is so. I quite agree. But it is a nice way to legislate. You incorporate Clause 37 as applying to Ireland, when everybody who knows anything about these Acts at all knows that the Act which is referred to in Clause 37 has no application to Ireland.
The Summary Jurisdiction Act is also used at the top of page 26.
That is possibly so, but the importation of this Clause does not make it any better. This Clause distinctly says the Summary Jurisdiction Act, the right hon. Gentleman said when he was asked to deal with this question, this is merely a question of renumbering Clauses. It is nothing of the sort. Neither 37 nor 39 were in the Clauses we were discussing. They were first raised by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for North-East Cork. The right hon. Gentleman seems to have proceeded upon this method. He says, "I will give 39 but I will not give 37." The hon. and learned Gentleman then presses him, and the right hon. Gentleman says, "Very well, I will give 37, but I do not know whether it is applicable or not. If it is it will be put right in another place, and if not it will be otherwise dealt with." I think that is reducing legislation to an absolute farce.
Amendment agreed to.
In thanking the right hon. Gentleman for what he has done, may I point out that he will require to slightly modify Sub-section 10 based upon the condition that there was no appeal in Ireland from sentences under one month?
I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), paragraph (c) at the end, to insert,
This matter has already come up in connection with what happened with Clause 15 for England, and, unless I am mistaken, for Scotland also. So I think, in view of the desirability of assimilating the law upon this subject in the three countries, this Amendment should be made."(2) The wife or husband of a person charged with bigamy may be called as a witness either for the prosecution or defence and without the consent of the person charged."
I am sorry, but, as I have already informed the hon. Member opposite, I do not propose to include this in the Clause.
As I understand the right hon. Gentleman has incorporated this Amendment in the Clause relating to Scotland this afternoon. If he has done that for Scotland, why not do the same for Ireland?
I will give the hon. Baronet a reason. When this was being done for Scotland, and I pointed out to the Scottish Members that this grave change was being made in the law, and they assented, and although it was not upon the Paper, it was unanimously agreed that it was necessary. I will give the hon. Baronet a reason for not applying it to Ireland, which he will appreciate. When the Criminal Evidence Act was going through we agreed to allow it to go through for England, and I think for Scotland, upon a pledge being given from the then Prime Minister that no attempt would be made to compel Irish prisoners to give evidence on their own behalf. That was a pledge, upon the faith of which we allowed the law of England to be altered, and we understood that no attempt would be made to alter the law of Ireland without the consent of the Irish Members.
When we discussed this matter for Scotland we were told that it was extending to Scotland the power of a person to give evidence on his own behalf. But there is nothing about that in the Bill. By a verbal Amendment we have extended the provisions of this Bill to Scotland, and now the question arises whether it should be extended to Ireland. In this Amendment there is no question of compelling a prisoner to give evidence at all, and this simply deals with one isolated case of bigamy, where a person charged may give evidence, although not compelled to do so. This is an enabling Section, but I am not anxious to press it upon an unwilling House, or upon England or Scotland, because it makes very little difference. When we are passing a Bill in this way, however, I protest. We have evidently made this Bill apply to Scotland without knowing it, but if the hon. and learned Member for North-East Cork does not wish it to apply to Ireland, I will not press the matter.
I beg to move to add the following new Sub-section:—
"(11) Upon any information, summons or complaint laid or made before a Court of Summary Jurisdiction in Ireland where-ever the defendant is called upon to show cause why such defendant should not be bound over to keep the peace or be of good behaviour, the defendant shall be entitled to call witnesses and tender evidence at the hearing of said information, summons or complaint."
I think it will now be necessary to move an Amendment to Cause 37, but I will not move it if the Government object.
Yes, that will be necessary.
As the law stands at present in England a defendant who is summoned to show cause why he should not enter into sureties to be of good behaviour is entitled to give evidence in his own defence, but in Ireland the law is different. The defendant is usually called upon to show cause, but he goes into Court and he is not allowed to show any cause. The information is read, the com plainant is heard, and he has no opportunity of—
Question, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill." put, and agreed to.