Page images
PDF
EPUB

the fine, for selling in the streets on a Sunday copies of a Dublin evening paper, The Evening Telegraph. Now, in the course of my residence in the Metropolis, I have continually seen papers that are brought out on Sunday morning-The Observer and other papers hawked about and sold freely in the London streets. Now, if this Act is to be carried out at all, let it have equal application all round; but do not give to Justices power which, in many instances, they use in antagonism to the general interests of the people. It is, unfortunately, the case in my country that they do use their powers in a manner antagonistic to the interests of the people, and they use this antiquated old law in an unfair way. Unless the right hon. Gentleman will answer my request, and satisfy the Committee as he ought to satisfy the Committee that there shall be a fair and square application of the Act all round in the future, I shall have to persevere in my Motion. It is much to be deprecated that in the North of Ireland, where there is a certain amount of religious antagonism, the application of this Act for the observance of the Lord's Day-commonly called Sunday-should be made the means of further inflaming the opinions of people who do not agree upon religious observances. I really think that, instead of repealing merely one section of the Act, it would be better that the whole series of these Acts should be repealed. I am myself opposed to the closing of all places of amusement on Sunday. I think it is hard that people who have only one day in seven at their disposal should be debarred from visiting museums and such places then. THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is now entering too fully into the principle of the Act-not confining himself to his Amendment. And as to the Amendment again, I find, on reference, that one of my Predecessors in the Chair has ruled a proposal being made to amend an Act contained in a Continuance Bill by the omission of a portion of a clause—that such an Amendment could not be entertained, and that by an Amendment the Committee could only decide whether a whole Act, or any substantial part of an Act, should be maintained in the Bill. The Bill cannot be amended by striking out the words in the Act to which the hon. Member has referred.

DR. TANNER: Then, Sir, I will move the rejection of the whole Act. It is an enactment that is the cause of a great deal of mischief in the North of Ireland when entrusted to the administration of people too ready, by encouraging such speeches as the noble Lord opposite (Lord Randolph Churchill) has delivered and by other means, to inflame the feelings of religious fanaticism, to the danger of the community at large. I sincerely hope the Committee will support me in the Motion to omit this Act.

Amendment proposed, in page 3, lines 36 and 37, to leave out Item 20.-. (Dr. Tanner.)

Question proposed, "That the Item proposed to be left out stand part of the Schedule."

MR. BRADLAUGH (Northampton): I trust that this Motion will not be pressed by the hon. Member for Mid Cork (Dr. Tanner). I do not know whether he understands the effect of striking this item out. I regard these Sunday Observance Acts as of most obnoxious character; but this particular Act limits the effect of them, and provides that they shall only be enforced under the responsibility of a responsible officer. I think myself the old Act is most objectionable; but it is difficult to discuss that on this Expiring Laws Continuance Bill, and I do not want to occupy time. I am against the law, and for this reason I oppose the Amendment, which, being carried, would make the effect of the old law much more harsh.

MR. CLANCY: I do not know whether my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Cork will persist in his Motion. I fancy he will not. The reference he has made to a prosecution in Derry was a very aggravated case. It appears that the Orange Magistrates of Derry, having allowed the sale of Orange papers on Sunday year after year, took the very first opportunity they could of trying to stop the sale of a National paper on Sunday. Such an instance of gross partizanship naturally led my hon. Friend to move the omission of an Act under which it is in the power of magistrates in the North of Ireland to indulge in such an unfair and foolish proceeding.

MR. CONYBEARE: On the second reading I had occasion to refer to this

ESCHEAT (PROCEDURE) BILL [Lords].
(Mr. Attorney General.)
[BILL 373.] COMMITTEE.
Bill considered in Committee.

{COMMONS} specific Act; and may I be allowed to say that my objection to this Act is not as an Act limiting prosecutions under the old Act? My objection, like that of the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Bradlaugh), is to the whole code of legislation of this kind, and to this Act in particular, as dealing with that legislation in a wrong spirit. My view is that the whole of this legislation ought to be repealed, and that it should not be in the power of any individual to institute a prosecution.

GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOUR: I hope hon. Members will not leave out of view the statements made by Lord Cross when he was Home Secretary, as to the beneficial effect of legislation in this direction. Great credit is due to the Conservative Party for passing an Act restraining the prosecutions for Sabbath breaking under the Act of Charles II. This was done by Lord Cross, and ought not to be repealed; but it should now be made perma

nent.

[ocr errors]

DR. TANNER: After the remarks of the hon. Member for Northampton I will withdraw my Motion with pleasure. But may I point out that the application of this law in England and Scotland and the use made of it in the North of Ireland are very different things? Where the law is administered by magistrates, the bulk of whom belong to the Orange faction, its application has such strong traces of partizan spirit that it cannot fail to prove injurious to the public interest, and brings law and order-that well-worn phrase we have so often heard into contempt. Of course, having heard the explanations made notably that of the hon. Member for Northampton that the effect of my Amendment would tend to renew the old Sunday Act in its harsh and crude manner, I ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Motion made, and Question put, "That this Schedule be the Schedule of the Bill."

(In the Committee.)

Clause 1 (Short title) agreed to.

Clause 2 (Power to regulate procedure with respect to escheats to Crown).

On the Motion of Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL, the following Amendments made:

In page 1, line 12, leave out "regulating;" line 16, after "real estate," insert "or any interest therein;" line 17, leave out from the second "escheat" to end of line 18, and insert "whether in relation to the Crown or otherwise, or the holding of any inquest of office not otherwise regulated by law.

(2.) Such rules shall provide that an inquisi

tion touching real estate shall find of whom the
real estate was held, and that every inquisition
shall be forthwith returned into the Central
Office of the Supreme Court of Judicature, and
that every person aggrieved by any such in-
quisition shall be entitled to traverse the same,
from time to time directed by rules of court.
or to object thereto, in such manner as may be

"(3.) Subject to the provisions of section six of The Intestates Estates Act, 1884,' no grant shall be made of any real estate alleged to be escheated until after the inquisition finding the title thereto has been returned to the Central Office of the Supreme Court of Judicature.

"(4.) An inquisition shall not prejudice any rights which, at the time of the death of the person that led to the inquisition, were vested in some other person.

"(5.) If the inquisition does not find of whom the real estate was held, any person aggrieved shall be entitled to obtain from the High Court an order for the taking of another inquisition.

"(6.) This Act shall apply to inquiries into the title of Her Majesty in right of Her Duchy of Lancaster, with this qualification, that any rules which may be made under this Act shall be made by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster with the approval of the Lord Chancellor."

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 3 (Repeal of enactments in Schedule).

[ocr errors]

On the Motion of Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL, the following Amendments made: The Committee divided:-Ayes 101;"effect," insert "the validity or inva In page 2, line 4, after Noes 18: Majority 83.-(Div. List, lidity of;" in line 11, after "procedure," No. 475.) [3.40 P.M.] or practice;" and, after " use, insert "under the provisions of any Act hereby repealed or otherwise."

Preamble agreed to.

Bill reported, without Amendment; read the third time, and passed.

insert 66

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Schedule.

On the Motion of Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL, the following Amendment made-In page 4, leave out lines 23 and 24.

Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Preamble agreed to.

Bill reported, with Amendments. THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH) (Strand, Westminster): As there appears to be absolutely no difference of opinion whatever on this Bill, I will ask the House to allow the further stages to be taken. Motion made, and Question, "That the Bill be now considered," (Mr. W. H. Smith,)-put, and agreed to. Bill considered, as amended. Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."-(Mr. W. H. Smith.)

MR. SEXTON: On a point of Order, is it permissible to take this further stage after we have only just taken Committee and Consideration?

MR. SPEAKER: At this time of the Session it is frequently done, there being

no Amendments made on Consideration.

The right hon. Gentleman is at liberty

to ask the House to do it.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.

STATUTE LAW REVISION BILL [Lords]-[BILL 379.]

(Mr. Attorney General.)

SECOND READING.

Order for Second Reading read. Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."-(Mr. Attorney General.)

In reply to General Sir GEORGE BALFOUR,

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER) (Isle of Wight) said, the valuable work of the Revision Committee could not become apparent until effective steps were taken to clear away a large number of obsolete Statutes. Question put, and agreed to.

Bill read a second time, and committed. THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH) (Strand,

Westminster) asked the House to allow the remaining stages to be taken at once, and moved that the Speaker should now leave the Chair.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."-(Mr. W. H. Smith.)

MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR inquired whether the Whiteboy Acts were included in this measure?

SIR RICHARD WEBSTER said, they were not.

MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: They are spent.

SIR RICHARD WEBSTER said, he lawyer. The Bill only included those could not say that, not being an Irish

Acts which the Law Officers knew of their own knowledge, without elaborate investigation, to be obsolete.

MR. CONYBEARE said, he must protest against the Whiteboy Acts not being included in this Bill.

MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR said, he would oppose the Motion that the Speaker do leave the Chair.

hon. Gentleman has already spoken on MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The the Motion.

asked a question. MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: I only

MR. CLANCY moved the adjournment of the debate.

Motion made, and Question, "That the Debate be now adjourned,"-(Mr. Clancy)-put, and negatived.

Original Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," put, and agreed to.

Bill considered in Committee.

(In the Committee.) Several Clauses agreed to, with Amendments.

MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR (Donegal, E.): I merely wish to point out clearly, and in express terms, what it is we are doing. We have been taking the second reading of a Bill of an important character-the importance of which has been impressed upon us by hon. Gentlemenand then, without any Notice given, we are invited at once to go into Committee. We may have Amendments moved which are not upon the Paper, and which not one single soul in the Committee, except the hon. Member who moves them, knows anything at all about. I do say,

with all due respect to the Government, | stand part of the Schedule to the mea that, whatever the period of the Session sure.' is, that is not the proper way to conduct Public Business.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER) (Isle of Wight): I shall be happy to give the fullest explanation with regard to the Bill in every particular in which explanation can be required. There are only three Amendments, and all these but one are verbal. One of them has been passed, and I will state what it is if the Committee will permit me. It was merely the insertion of the date of a certain Statute which had been omitted by accident. I think the hon. Member for East Donegal (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) will admit that there has been nothing very unconstitutional in making that Amendment in Committee without Notice. The second Amendment is a mere verbal improvement effected by the draftsman, who saw that there were certain words after the name of the witness Eva Thornton. The third is the omission of a Statute which ought to be struck out, owing to a learned Judge having raised a doubt as to whether it is obsolete or not.

MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: No doubt, the particular Amendment before the Committee is trifling in its character; but I think we have a right to ask that this Bill shall not be taken until Monday.

SIR RICHARD WEBSTER: The third reading will not be taken until Monday.

MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: It was proposed before going into Committee that the Committee stage should be deferred until Monday; and the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General, because he would not assent to that proposal, put us to the trouble of assembling for a Division, although a Division was not taken. If we had been allowed time, we should not only have understood the point of the Amendment now before the Committee, but we should have understood all the other points which could be raised on the Bill. This particular Amendment refers to putting away "certain divers books and images."

THE CHAIRMAN: We have not come to that yet. The Amendment is, on page 10, to leave out lines 34, 35, 36, and 37. The Question is, "That these words

THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH) (Strand, Westminster): If hon. Gentlemen wish to have until Monday to consider the effect of this Amendment, there will be no objection on the part of the Government to postponement. I trust, however, that on Monday, when these things have been thoroughly considered, there will be no difference of opinion on the matter. If that is understood, I shall agree to report Progress.

MR. CONYBEARE (Cornwall, Camborne): I have not, in the case of this Bill, Sir, been able to follow your salutary advice to make myself acquainted with everything in the measure; but, taking from the Table a volume of the Statutes, I find that this Statute we are asked to prolong in the present Bill has been spent-namely, that the 3 & 4 Edward VI. c. 10 is really so far spent as to have been eliminated from the Statute Book.

SIR RICHARD WEBSTER: The hon. Member has taken up a volume of the Statutes, in which he will find the 3 & 4 Edward VI. c 10, but not in the proper rotation. That arises from the fact that there are in some years several Acts bearing the same number. If the hon. Member will refer to the Statutes at large he will find that what I say is correct, and that the Act he is speaking of is the one continued in this Bill.

MR. CONYBEARE: We have kept on the Table of this House a revised edition of Statutes for reference; and when one gets up and appeals to this revised version, and finds it inconsistent with what we find in the proposed Bill, he is told that he is altogether wrong in the matter, and that there is a different rotation. Of what year is the Act of Edward VI. to which the hon. and learned Gentleman refers?

SIR RICHARD WEBSTER: The hon. Member has not read the Bill. He will find in the Bill the precise reference to the Act which is now continued-on page 10 of the Bill, volume 15 of the Statutes, page 1,266. As I am now addressing the Committee, I may as well say that I will not go into the other Amendment, but will put it on the Paper, so that hon. Members will see

what it is. The object of it is to strike
out certain words on page 15.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That the Chairman do report Progress,
and ask leave to sit again."(Mr.
Attorney General.)

MR. CLANCY (Dublin Co., N.): The hon. and learned Gentleman the Attor

ney General (Sir Richard Webster) complained a little while ago of our discussing a question of which he had received no Notice. I now beg to give Notice that I, for one, when the Bill next MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: I give comes before the House, will move to credit to the right hon. Gentleman the insert in the Schedule those proviLeader of the House (Mr. W. H. Smith) sions of the Emancipation Act, 1829, for his dexterous Parliamentary tactics. which renders absolutely every priest I compliment him upon the success of in Ireland and the member of every his stratagem. He has made progress religious order a felon liable to transwith this measure because, now that the portation for the term of his natural Bill has reached this stage, it is impos- life. I give the hon. and learned Gensible to block it. The right hon. Gentleman Notice that I will raise the questleman has very dexterously effected his tion, and I hope he will not then plead object; but the Government ought in all that he has not had time to consider this fairness-having had this Amendment matter. up their sleeves as it were--to have given us some indication before the Speaker left the Chair that it was their intention

to alter the Bill when they got into Committee. Apparently, at least so far as we can judge, they seem to be anxious to amend a Bill which called for no Amendment whatever in Committee, and therefore the Committee stage appeared to be, practically, a merely formal proceeding; but now we find that it is nothing of the kind; and with regard to that Amendment last moved, I was desirous of endeavouring, if possible, to get included in the Bill certain matters cognate altogether to books and images which the Amendment dealt with. On the mere Question that the Chairman report Progress, of course I am again debarred from going into the subject-matter of this Amendment, which I desire to secure. My Amendment related to what is really an obsolete law. It had reference to the position of Members of the Orders of Jesuits and other religious bodies in Ireland and the penalties attaching to certain proceedings by them. The Motion to report Progress is of such a character that one is obliged to confine himself to the particular point. It does appear to me that on this occasion the Government has been guilty of what, without desiring to be offensive and giving the Government credit for all dexterity, I do think a piece of sharp practice. They have got their stage, and, no doubt, they will be able to carry through the Bill and be able to resist any Amendment which we may move, however reasonable it may be.

Question put, and agreed to.

Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.

APPELLATE JURISDICTION BILL [Lords].-BILL 234.]

(Mr. Secretary Matthews.)

SECOND READING.

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."-(Mr. Attorney General.)

MR. BRADLAUGH (Northampton) said, he did not wish to delay the Bill; but he desired to point out that Lay Lords, besides the Law Lords, could exercise-as one Lay Lord had recently exercised-the right to sit as Judges in the Court of Appeal. He did not propose that the point should be dealt with now; but he thought the Appellate Court should be specifically confined to the Law Lords, and that Lay Lords should not be able to give judgments. In the case of "Clark v. Bradlaugh," Lord Denman sat and delivered a judgment which the rest of the House was obliged to disregard, and that gave rise to scandal at the time.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER) (Isle of Wight) said, he hoped the hon. Member would not attach any importance to the fact that a layman sat on a particular occasion. With that exception, so far as he was aware, there had been no case in modern times in which other than Law Lords had taken any effective part in

« PreviousContinue »