Slike strani
PDF
ePub

reasons he had given he now moved the omission of the clause.

out, the majority of three to two were to prevail.

MR. HEALY said, the clause provided

Amendment proposed, in page 2, to thatleave out Clause 2.-(Mr. Warton.)

Question proposed, "That Clauss 2 diction in the Special Commission Court, the

stand part of the Bill."

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT said, he was perfectly aware there was a great deal to be said against, as well as in favour of the clause. If it were not so late in the night he might be disposed to enter into the arguments for and against the proposal to allow appeal; but the Committee must feel that the Government did not make a proposal of this kind without very mature consideration. There was only one thing he must notice in what the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Warton) had said. He had said a man would be convicted by three to two. That was not so. No

man could be convicted under the Bill except by six to two, for the Court below must be unanimous, and in the Court above there must be a majority, and three and three made six. They could, therefore, only have a conviction and a confirmation upon the decision of six to two. The reason they had given the right of appeal was that such great power was being given in the case of heinous offences that some additional security ought to be provided against abuse. Having, after great consideration, incorporated such a principle in the Bill, the hon. and learned Member could not expect the Government to recede

from it.

MR. WARTON said, the reply of the Home Secretary was extremely plausible. He could add three and three together quite as well as the right hon. and learned Gentleman; but the point he wished to impress upon the Committee was that when the cry rang through Ireland that a man had been hanged by three to two, any confidence the people might have in the new tribunal would be greatly imperilled. Supposing, too, that the genial and short-witted Irish public were met with the argument of six to two, which was the not very formidable argument of the Home Secretary. There would not be six to two on the same statement of facts. At the trial below there would be only part of the evidence; but in the Court of Appeal, where an entirely different case might be made

"If the appellant establishes want of jurisCourt of Criminal Appeal may quash the proceedings;"

and the 26th clause said

"Provided that no person shall be tried or punished twice for the same offence." He would like be informed whether, under the Bill, there could be a second trial for the same offence?

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir

HENRY JAMES) said, that, under the Bill, for the same offence. a man could not be really in peril twice

ment on the subject on Report. MR. HEALY gave Notice of an Amend

COLONEL NOLAN remarked that the discussion was being carried on in a vatives were showing great interest in most extraordinary way. The Conserthe Bill; but that interest prompted them to bring in several Amendments to make the measure still more severe than it was originally framed. He really thought he ought to move to report Progress. He protested against the way the Bill was being discussed by the Conservatives, and if they persisted he should speak upon every one of the Amendments, and carry on the discussion in the same spirit they had manifested.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause 3 (Constitution of Court of Criminal Appeal, 40 & 41 Vict. c. 57).

Motion made, and Question proposed, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. T. P. "That the Chairman do report Progress, O' Connor.)

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT said, he would like to take the clause, the consideration of which he did not think would occupy more than a couple of minutes. Of course, if hon. Gentlemen persevered in the Motion to report Progress he should not oppose it.

MR. T. P. O'CONNOR said, he would be very happy to accede to the request of the right hon. and learned Gentleman; but really the clause contained a very important provision. He and his hon. Friends felt very strongly upon the question, and he should be glad if the right hon. and learned Gentleman would now allow them to get to bed.

MR. HEALY said, he had an Amendment on the Paper, in page 3, line 4, to leave out "by the Lord Chancellor," and insert

"The Judges of the Irish Courts shall meet on or before the third day of Michaelmas Term in each year, and shall select, by a majority of votes, three of their number for the trial of the offences before mentioned in a Special Commission Court, under this Act, during the ensuing year. If in any case at their meeting the judges are equally divided in their choice of one of their number to serve on a Special Commission, the Lord Chancellor shall have a second or casting vote. In the event of the death or illness of any Judge for the time being on the rota, or his inability to act for any reasonable cause, the Lord Chancellor shall fill up the vacancy by placing another judge on the rota." He understood that the right hon. and learned Gentleman was prepared to agree to the proposition that the Judges should be chosen by rota. That being so, there would be no contentious matter in the clause, so that he would suggest to his

MR. HEALY said, he did not quite understand what the right hon. and learned Gentleman proposed with regard to the election of the Judges.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT said, they proposed that the election should be by ballot, and for that purpose he now moved to omit the first two lines of Sub-section 2, namely

"The Judges shall sit according to a rota to be from time to time determined by the Lord Chancellor."

Amendment agreed to.

MR. MARUM moved to report Progress. Motion agreed to.

Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

PUBLIC SCHOOLS (SCOTLAND)
TEACHERS BILL.-[BILL 153.]

hon. Friend (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) that (Mr. Mundella, The Lord Advocate, Mr. Solicitor

the clause might be taken.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT said, he also proposed that it should be provided by the clause that instead of the rota being nominated by the Lord Chancellor it should be chosen by ballot.

MR. MARUM said, he had an Amendment to the clause, to the effect that an appeal should be determinable in the same way as the trial in the Court below. His Amendment was, in page 3, to leave out Sub-section 3, which pro

vided that

[blocks in formation]

General for Scotland.)

COMMITTEE.

Order for Committee read.

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

MR. A. GRANT said, before the Speaker left the Chair, he would appeal to the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council upon the subject of bringing on a Bill of this character and importance at that late hour. He thought that it was rather a strong thing to take the Bill, seeing that so many Members who were interested in it were not present. There was a material principle involved in the measure, which he thought deserved fuller discussion than it could receive at that hour; and he was bound to say that unless the right hon. Gentleman could agree to the postponement of the Committee stage he should feel it his duty to move the adjournment of the debate.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned." (Mr. A. Grant.)

MR. MUNDELLA said, he was

greatly surprised at the course taken by the hon. Member who had just spoken, inasmuch as the Bill, as it stood, was substantially agreed to by Scotch Members when the question came before the

House on the Motion of the hon. Mem- were clearly not in a position satisber for Wigtonshire (Sir Herbert factorily to proceed with it. Moreover, Maxwell). There had been no change he thought that it was wrong on the whatever in the Bill, every line of which part of the Government to pick and had been shadowed out and agreed to choose, out of the large number of meaon the occasion referred to. The hon. sures before them, one or two particular Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar) had Bills, for the purpose of forcing them placed a block upon the Bill, which he through the House. He was not acwas glad to see had since been with- quainted with the details of this quesdrawn; and he certainly felt some de- tion; but he joined in the belief that it gree of surprise that Scotch Members was too late to discuss such a measure should now object to proceeding with after the reasons put forward by the the consideration of the Bill in Com- hon. Members for Leith (Mr. A. Grant) mittee. The hon. Member himself had and Edinburgh (Mr. Buchanan). While, an Amendment on the Paper, which, he no doubt, the Government had their reapresumed, he would wish to be con- sons for pushing the Bill on, he was sidered without unnecessary delay. The quite sure that hon. Members for ScotBill was a short one, and consisted of land who had spoken had equally good only four clauses, upon which there was reasons for adjourning the debate. a practical agreement. Under the circumstances, he trusted the hon. Member would withdraw his objection to the Motion before the House.

MR. MUNDELLA said, the Bill had been brought on that evening on the understanding that it was the unanimous wish of Scotch Members that it should MR. BUCHANAN said, there had proceed. If, however, he were perevidently been some slight misunder-mitted to get the Chairman into the standing. A great number of Scotch Members, who felt a strong interest in this question, were absent from the House, amongst them the hon. Member for Wigtonshire (Sir Herbert Maxwell), and the hon. Member for Forfarshire (Mr. J. W. Barclay). Under those circumstances, he thought they ought not to discuss an important question of principle at that late hour.

SIR DONALD CURRIE said, he hoped they might be allowed to proceed with the Bill.

MR. BIGGAR said, he thought it would be best to adjourn the debate. He had taken off the block against the Bill, and had given Notice of an Amendment which was not yet upon the Paper. As he desired this might be properly discussed in Committee, he hoped the debate would be adjourned.

MR. WARTON said, he was quite sure that both the hon. Members opposite who had just spoken were not likely to oppose the progress of this Bill without good and sufficient reason. They were undoubtedly men of business, and knew what was right and what was wrong in a matter of this kind. The question involved in the Bill was one undoubtedly of great importance; and at that late hour, after their attention had been taken up for such a length of time by the important measure which had been so long before the House, hon, Members

Chair, he should be willing to move to report Progress, in order to give an opportunity for the consideration of Amendments which hon. Members might wish to propose.

MR. A. GRANT said, under those circumstances, he would ask permission of the House to withdraw his Motion for the adjournment of the debate.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
Original Question put, and agreed to.
Bill considered in Committee.

(In the Committee.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again." (Mr. Mundella.)

Motion agreed to.

[ocr errors]

Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

PARTNERSHIPS (re-committed) BILL. (Mr. Monk, Mr. Gregory, Mr. Barran, Mr. Lewis Fry.)

[BILL 179.] COMMITTEE. Order for Committee read.

MR. MONK said, the House was aware that this Bill had been before the Select Committee, and had been considerably altered in detail. The Report of the Committee had only been issued

two or three days previously, and as hon. Members might not have had time sufficiently to consider its contents, he proposed merely to go into Committee pro formd, and to put down the Bill for that day week.

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

MR. HORACE DAVEY said, he was sorry to trouble the House at that late hour; but if his hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester insisted upon his Motion he should feel it his duty to take a division upon it. He had the strongest objections to this Bill. It was perfectly true, as his hon. Friend had said, that the Report of the Select Committee had only been in the hands of hon. Members for two or three days. That being so, he must press his objection to proceeding any further with the Bill at that moment. The objections he had were that the Bill was useless, and that so far as it was not useless it was absolutely objectionable. He ventured to say that this Bill would be of no use to any professional man; and, on the other hand, it would be mischievous to the public, because it pretended to be a Code of Partnership Law. If it were necessary that a codification of this law should take place, it should, in his opinion, be carried out by the responsible Government, with the assistance of experts. Without wishing to speak disrespectfully of the Committee which sat to consider this Bill, he ventured to suggest that they were not fully able to deal with this important branch of the law.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned.' (Mr. Horace Davey.)

MR. EUSTACE SMITH said, he hoped his hon. and learned Friend would not persevere in his opposition to this Bill, which expressed the unanimous feeling of the Chambers of Commerce throughout the country. The Bill came down simply in the form of a codification of the existing law. It was easy for his hon. and learned Friend to say that it would do no good to anybody; and, from the point of view of his hon. and learned Friend, no doubt it would do very little good to any leading Queen's Counsel or leading solicitor in the country. But it

Mr. Monk

[ocr errors]

would be a good text-book to men who wished to enter into partnership, and who desired to make themselves acquainted with the obligations by which they would be bound. He, therefore, trusted his hon. and learned Friend

would allow the Bill to go into Committee, where any Amendments which he had to suggest would meet with the fullest consideration. It was generally the case, when any scheme for codification of law was presented to the House, to say, if it were a large scheme, the House had no time to deal with it; whereas, if it were a small one, it was alleged that it was dealing in a petty manner with a large subject. He would remind hon. Members that if that form of criticism were always enforced they would never be able to make progress with any measure of the kind. He appealed to his hon. and learned Friend to allow the Bill to go into Committee.

MR. T. C. BARING said, he thought the Bill contained matter that should be left out, and left out matter which it ought to contain.

MR. WARTON considered that the taunts which had been thrown out against the Legal Profession by the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Eustace Smith) were quite unjustified in the present case, because he was certain that a question of this kind would be considered in the minds of all impartial lawyers without any reference to their fees. The hon. Member had thrown considerable light upon the origin of this Bill, which was, in fact, legislation by the Chambers of Commerce. If these bodies considered themselves superior to the House of Commons in a matter of them to codify the law themselves withthis kind, the better plan would be for out coming to Parliament.

MR. WHITLEY said, he was sorry to hear the remarks which had fallen from the hon. and learned Member for Christchurch (Mr. Horace Davey), because he could assure the Committee that this Bill had met not only with the approval of the mercantile community, but also with the approval of many members of the Legal Profession. He represented one of the largest mercantile communities in the United Kingdom; and he could say, from his own knowledge, that both the mercantile and the legal community in that town were strongly in favour of this measure.

It

was a most desirable Bill for the codifi- | learned Judge had been kind enough to cation of the law upon a subject of the go through it. On the whole his Lordship strongest interest to the commercial approved the Bill, but made some minor classes in this country, and expressed in suggestions, which were adopted by the the most simple manner all that people Board of Trade, submitted to the hon. could wish to understand with regard to Member for Gloucester, accepted by him, the Law of Partnership. He was per- and then incorporated in the Bill. Under suaded that the more this Bill was these circumstances, although he was prestudied the more it would commend pared to admit that there might still be itself to the approval of those who were some points on which codification had not interested in the codification of commer- been properly effected, yet he submitted cial law; and, certainly, he hoped it that these were rather matters for the would receive the sanction of Parliament. consideration of the Committee of the He did not know whether the hon. House. He was in hope the House Member for Gloucester (Mr. Monk) would allow the Committee stage of the would press his Motion on the present Bill to be taken, and that his hon. occasion; but, if so, he, for one, was pre- Friend would consent to postpone furpared to support him. He repeated that ther progress for a fortnight. Then in the Bill was a most useful one; it had Committee of the House any further on the back of it the names of Represen- Amendments which the hon. and learned tatives of some of the largest commercial Member for Christchurch (Mr. Horace cities in the country; and he certainly Davey) had to propose could be fully trusted that the commercial Members of considered. For these reasons he should that House would give it the support which it deserved.

MR. CHAMBERLAIN said, this Bill came before the House on the present occasion in a different form to that in which it was first introduced. The Bill originally proposed some important changes in the law, upon which there would have been considerable difference of opinion. But these proposed changes had been omitted from this Bill in consequence of the action of the Committee upstairs. The Bill now came before the House chiefly as a measure of codification. His own opinion was that codification of the law was of the greatest advantage wherever it could possibly be effected, and, in the present case, would be undoubtedly of the greatest advantage to the commercial community, even if it were not so to lawyers. If the Bill carried out what it professed to do, he said it was worthy of support in that House. With regard to the Bill, as a measure of codification, he admitted the necessity of having the opinion of experts upon it, and that the opinion of the commercial community alone was not sufficient. The matter had at different stages occupied the attention of the Department over which he had the honour to preside; and he had, to some extent, examined into the subject, with the assistance of the officials of the Department. But he had done something more than that. He had submitted the Bill to Mr. Justice Lindley, and that

vote for the Motion to go into Committee.

MR. HORACE DAVEY said, as the Government would vote against the Motion for Adjournment, he should not trouble the House to divide.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
Original Question put, and agreed to.
Bill considered in Committee.

(In the Committee.)

MR. T. C. BARING pointed out that, the Bill being now in Committee, it might on a future occasion be brought on at any hour of the night; and, therefore, he thought some undertaking should be given that it would be brought on at an hour at which it could be fairly discussed. This was essentially necessary if there were any Amendments of importance to consider.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again.”— (Mr. Monk.)

MR. WARTON said, he hoped the hon. Member for Gloucester would reply to the suggestion of the hon. Member for South Essex.

MR. MONK said, he regretted he could give no pledge whatever. Hon. Members must be aware that it was not in his power to bring on the Bill at any hour he pleased. In existing circumstances it was useless to expect to bring

« PrejšnjaNaprej »