Widnes Examiner. — 1888-08-04 (Widnes, Cheshire, England)

SOLICITOR-GENERAL for SCOTLAND Could not see how the reasoning of the hon. gentleman held good in (Wring. for lay commissioners and then sneaking of "unknown barristers" as he did. Were the lay commisSioners to stay at home while the judges went abroad to take evidence?  'On a division the amendment was rejected by 233 against' 195. I Mr: W. H. Swum proposed that the commission should •consist of Site James Hannon, Mr. Justice Day, and Mr. Justice Smith. The names were put separately. To "Mr. Justice 'Flaneeifs appointment there was no demitr, but the name of Mr. Justice Day cave rise to a long,' animated, and somewhat painful debate.  Mr.' LABOLICHERE started the opposition 't7 quoting .some opinions reflecting upon Irishmen generkiiy which the' learned Judge in question was reported .to ImvP expressed in connection with a case at Liverpciel in 188( —Mr. Asquvrit thought the Government should have ,consulted the Opposition 'soory! selecting the Jud,es, and Mr. T: P. O'CoNNoa st.t.Tested the withdrawal of Mr. Justice Day's name, a process which Mr. FINLAY -asserted would carry with it an imputatien.--Mr. W. H. SMITH asserted that he had never heard .a whisper against Mr. 'Justice Day's impartiality.—lt,.Temained for Mr. Jottx MORLEY to add a sensational •element to the discussion, which he did by quoting a lettevreceived, he said; from a high authority, wherein the learned Judge. ref erred to was described as a man of rlth Century views and." a Tory of the old high-flyer, non-juror type." Clamour was raised for the name of Mr. Motley's correspondent, and this was giyen to the House,-as it had been previously to Mr. W. IT Smith. It tumed;out that ' the writer qf the letter was Mr. Adams, vrho.rat with Mr. fiustice Day on the Belfast Riots Commission.—Mr. BALFOUR contended that the sole aim of the Government had been to secure Judges of absolute impartiality. The discussion was described by Mr. Gr.‘nTroxn as being-' odious and painful," and he added that' if the judges had been drawn by lot the GovernMent would have done' better with the composition of the Gominission. He said: There are at least a dozen judges to none of WhOGI would objection ,have been taken or (Tit iciStn directed. 'This is not a question of Mr. Justice Day being convicted of any offence it is a question of a man being anpointed to an office of extraordinary delicacy and difficulty in the discharge of the duties of Which he is to be deprived of the aid and safeguards under which he has hitherto acted. The appointment must be•rubove objection or reasonable or rational suspicion, and -when' you say-the terms we require are too severe' my answer is that 'nearly every judge onthe bench will be regarded as absolutely, fulfilling these iconditions under these cirenmatanoes. I lament that her Majesty's Government appear to have treated this as a sort of perfunctory duty without thcromsh and minut6 inquiry. He should, he said., give a distinct, decided, but paintul vote against the -appointment. Mr. Amaseseis moved the omission of the word "tithegations" in the second clause.--The ROWE SECRETARY defended the ,szse of the word, and Sir W. Ilincoom. spoke of it asthe letting in of every kind of tornado,of calumny.—Mr. WHITBREAD said the bill as it todd' would not enable hon. members to meet any charges. against them.,--Sir J. Goasr reViied that if the word' " allegationa" were not inserted the Commission migist refuse evidence of the authorship of the letters attr;-; buted to MT. Tomei!, on the ground that it was not a charge.—The Douse divided, when the amendment, was defeated by"2Bs to 200. Mr. IL T. limn -moved to add after allegations "of complicity with murder or violence."--The lioNs SECRETARY objeeted to toning down the inquiry. The Government wanted to refer the Whale matter alleged, , add there could 4lae nothing unfair in that.--Mr. CHAMBERLAIN declared that the amendment was not wide enough, and would met carry out the object of the mover of it.