HC Deb 31 July 1877 vol 236 cc227-53

(Mr. J. Lowther.)

[BILL 195.] COMMITTEE.

[Progress 25th July.]

Bill considered in Committee.

(In the Committee.)

[5.15 P.M.]

Union (continued).

Clause 4 (Naturalization of subjects of the Orange Free State and Transvaal Republic or Union).

MR. J. LOWTHER

moved that the clause be postponed.

MR. O'DONNELL

said, he rose to move to report Progress not with any desire of persisting in it, but simply in order that the Government might explain in what light they regarded many of the clauses of the Bill. If the Bill was simply an enabling Bill, it was quite clear to him that they could not permit clauses to remain in the Bill which seemed to bind down the Government to either a federal or a legislative union. Would it not be better to leave to the Colonies themselves to effect the union if they desired it? and was it necessary to have a special enabling Bill passed for the purpose of a legislative union in South Africa? It was not fair at this period of the Session to ask the House to spend hour after hour in debating clauses of such a character as those in this Bill, now they had given the Colo- nies permission to unite on the terms which they thought fit. The hon. Member was proceeding to speak on other topics relating to the South African Colonies, when—

MR. WHALLEY

rose to Order. He desired to ask, if the hon. Gentleman was in Order in speaking on points which were beyond the purview of the Bill? The subjects to which the hon. Gentleman was addressing his remarks might, perhaps, have been properly discussed on the Motion for the second reading; but they were not relevant to the subject-matter of the clause.

THE CHAIRMAN

The hon. Member for Peterborough is quite right in recalling to the Committee the fact that the observations which the hon. Member for Dungarvan is making would have been much more suitable on the second reading of the Bill. I do not feel at liberty to stop the hon. Member in his statement of the reasons which induce him to make his Motion to report Progress; but it is my opinion that he is travelling somewhat beyond the object of the Bill before the Committee.

MR. O'DONNELL

said, he was obliged for the Chairman's indulgence, and he entertained respect for his opinion. The only reason why he had ventured to bring forward these statements at all was, that since the very decisive vote on the 3rd clause yesterday, there had been a change in public opinion, and the intentions of Her Majesty's Government had come to be viewed in a different light. He would withdraw his Motion to report Progress.

THE CHAIRMAN

reminded the hon. Gentleman that he had announced his intention to be to move to report Progress; but he had not done so.

MR. O'DONNELL

said, that in order to obtain an answer to his Questions, he would move to report Progress.

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

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL,

said, in answer to the Question of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. O'Donnell), he had consulted his hon. and learned Colleague the Solicitor General on the question, and they were agreed in opinion that in order to enable the various South African Colonies to form a Confederation or legislative union there must be the agency of an Imperial Act of Parliament. Where a Legislative Assembly existed—as in the Cape Colony and Natal—it was quite possible for them to form a simple union; but their legislation must be confined to the regulation of their internal affairs. If they desired a complete legislative union, they could only effect it by an Act of the Imperial Legislature.

SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL

asked, Whether it would be competent under this Bill, for any two Colonies—say Griqualand and Natal—to confederate as a legislative union without a special Act of Parliament?

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

said, it was his opinion it was competent to Her Majesty, under this Bill, to authorize, by Order in Council, the confederation or legislative union of any two Colonies, without reference to the question of the general Confederation of all the South African Colonies.

MR. PARNELL

said, he did not quite understand the position in which the Committee stood. The hon. Member for Dungarvan had raised a very important question, and the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General had not fully answered it. The Attorney General had stated, with a certain qualification, that union between the South African Colonies could not take place without an Act of Parliament; but had not explained whether the passing of the first three clauses of the Bill and the Preamble were sufficient to enable the Government to carry out their intentions without going on to discuss the remaining clauses. The hon. Member was proceeding to refer to the effect of the first three and the subsequent clauses of the Bill, when—

MR. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSEN

rose to Order. He wished to know, what were the limits of discussion on a Motion to report Progress, and whether it was competent for the hon. Member, on a Motion for reporting Progress, not only to discuss points which would presently come before the Committee in clauses not yet reached, but actually to go back to clauses which already had been discussed?

THE CHAIRMAN

The right hon. Gentleman has asked me a Question which it is not very easy to answer. I understand that there is practically no limit to the range of arguments which a Member may bring forward on the Motion to report Progress, provided only they be directed to enforce his Motion: the only subjects excluded being clauses and Amendments to particular clauses which would come before the Committee subsequently. In the event of the hon. Member referring to such Amendments, I should feel it my duty to arrest him in his progress. As for the rest, it must be left to the conscience and sense of propriety on the part of the hon. Member himself to judge of the arguments proper to be used on such an occasion.

MR. PARNELL

I regret that the right hon. Member on the front Opposition bench (Mr. Knatchbull-Hugessen) should have thought it necessary to use his privilege to interrupt me in my arguments. The only result of that course must be to derange the current of my ideas, and prevent me from doing so soon or so efficiently what otherwise I was endeavouring to do as succinctly and clearly as I could. The hon. Member again proceeded to allude to provisions contained in the subsequent clauses of the Bill.

This course produced much dissatisfaction and general murmuring, until at length—

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

rose, and said: You have already ruled, Mr. Chairman, that an hon. Member cannot discuss the clauses of the Bill on a Motion to report Progress; but the hon. Member for Meath on this Motion to report Progress is going into a discussion of the whole of the measure; and not only so, but is pursuing that course deliberately. Sir, in this matter there is no use beating about the bush any longer. The hon. Member may say what he likes, but I maintain that the course which he is taking is nothing more or less than a deliberate attempt to obstruct the progress of the Bill.

MR. PARNELL

I rise to Order. ["Order! "] I move that the words of the hon. and learned Member be taken down. ["Order! "]

THE CHAIRMAN

Is it the pleasure of the Committee that the words used be taken down. [Loud, cries of "No, no!"] The hon. and learned Member for Oxford is in possession of the Committee, and must be allowed to pursue his observations.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

I said that the course taken by the hon. Member for Meath was a deliberate attempt to obstruct the progress of the Bill. That was the statement I made, and I adhere to my words. I will now tell the Committee why I made the statement. The hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell) got up at the beginning of the proceedings and immediately moved to report Progress; and he proceeded at considerable length to discuss the whole character of the Bill and its bearings. He afterwards proceeded to put a great number of questions to Her Majesty's Government which had to do with points of principle that might have been debated upon the introduction of the Bill—upon its second reading—upon going into Committee— upon the Report — or upon the third reading. For the purpose of discussing those points the hon. Member for Dungarvan moves to report Progress—not upon any of these occasions, but when we are in Committee. Sir, I bow entirely to the ruling which you have laid down; but if it be the strict law of Parliament—as I have no doubt it is after what you have said—that upon a Motion to report Progress a Member is at liberty to discuss the whole principles of a Bill, the sooner that Rule is altered the better. All I can say is, that in all my experience no Member of this House has ever thought fit to strain the use of that liberty as the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell) has done. I repeat that this is obstruction. And I would point to the fact that the hon. Member for Dungarvan, more moderate in his obstruction, actually offered to withdraw his Motion for reporting Progress, but that notwithstanding that, the hon. Member for Meath was going on with a long and protracted speech upon the merits of the Bill—after the hon. Member for Dungarvan had announced his intention of withdrawing his Motion. Therefore, notwithstanding that announcement, we are to have speech after speech, apparently, spun out with the greatest deliberation, not merely upon Motions to report Progress, but Motions to ask leave to withdraw Motions to report Progress. Sir, if this is not deliberate obstruction, I do not know what the meaning of those words is. But I hope that the House of Commons is strong enough to deal with conduct of this de- scription. If it does not do so, and do so effectually, it does not deserve the position which it holds in this country. I trust that all who have the reputation of the House at heart will stand by those who lead the House—Her Majesty's Government—will stand by the House, and that the House will stand by the Government in resisting that which has now become positively insupportable. These dilatory Motions are made day after day, and. night after night, our Business is protracted hour after hour, and we cannot but feel that the whole system under which we transact Business in this House is breaking down, and that whether or not it is the intention of some Members to break it down, the tendency of their conduct must be to destroy that system. Sir, I sincerely trust that the Government will persevere with this Bill, and that they will not be driven from their course by the dilatory Motions to which I have referred. I hope they will carry the Bill as it stands; and that they will show that the House of Commons has sufficient inherent vigour to deal with a small minority who endeavour to destroy its utility and usefulness. [Loud and continued cheers.]

THE CHAIRMAN

The hon. and learned Member for Oxford has asked me a Question, as to whether the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell) was in Order.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

I beg pardon—I accepted your ruling.

THE CHAIRMAN

I may again point out that it is not in Order in any discussion in Committee to anticipate a debate which may hereafter arise on a Question which may be later submitted to the Committee. It is, therefore, not in Order on a Motion to report Progress to discuss subsequent clauses or Amendments to those clauses.

MR. PARNELL

I will continue my observations—[Loud and increasing expressions of dissatisfaction]—subject, Sir, to your ruling, which I shall observe. I do not understand you to rule that it is out of Order to discuss the clauses of the Bill, but merely that it is out of Order to discuss the Amendments. ["No, no!"] I would like to ask whether, at the time I was interrupted by the hon. and learned Member for Oxford (Sir William Harcourt), I was proceeding in such a way as to make myself out of Order. At that time I was referring to the con- tents of the index to the Bill. I would also, ask whether I shall be in Order in replying to the attack which has been made upon me by the hon. and learned Member for Oxford?

THE CHAIRMAN

The hon. Member certainly appeared to me to be travelling into the subsequent clauses of the Bill at the moment the hon. and learned Member for Oxford rose to Order. With reference to his other Question—as to replying to the observations of the hon. and learned Member, I think he will see that it is not desirable, the point of Order having been already ruled, to renew a discussion upon that subject.

MR. PARNELL

[Amid continued cries of "Order!"] May I not refer to the observations of the hon. and learned Member with reference to what has taken place recently. ["No, no!"] Am I not to be allowed to answer the attack which has been made upon me— an attack which, I maintain, is altogether unjustifiable—I will not say " untruthful." ["Order, order!"]

THE CHAIRMAN

No doubt, if the hon. Member, having been made the subject of certain remarks, wished to make a personal explanation, the indulgence of the Committee would afford him that opportunity within certain limits; but he would only be in Order now in addressing the House in confining himself to the Question before the House— the Motion to report Progress.

MR. O'CONNOR POWER

I regret that, owing to the various duties which a Member of this House has to perform, it has not been possible for me to hear the whole of this discussion. Until a little while ago I was absent from the House, attending to other functions; but I understand the hon. and learned Member for Oxford made an attack upon the hon. Member for Meath; but that he now withdraws what he said, and thus deprives the hon. Member for Meath of the opportunity of a reply.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

I do not withdraw anything I said.

MR. O'OONNOR POWER

Then I ask you, Sir, should the hon. Member for Meath not be heard in reply?

THE CHAIRMAN

I have already said that the ruling on the point of Order which was raised having been made, the hon. Member for Meath will not now be in Order in making any reply on the Motion to report Progress. Had he wished to do so, he might by the indulgence of the Committee have made an explanation before the ruling was made.

MR. PARNELL

I am obliged to you, Sir, for the pains you have taken to explain how matters really stand; for I confess that at first I was somewhat puzzled, for I thought I was precluded from referring to the attack of the hon. and learned Member for Oxford by the Rules of the House; but it now appears I am only precluded because I did not refer to it at the time. I thoroughly appreciate the justice of your ruling, which seems to me to be in accordance with common sense; and I shall take care on any future occasion, when an attack may be made upon me, to reply to that attack before you make your ruling. The general tendency of the Bill—

MR. NEWDEGATE

rose to Order. It had been intimated to the Committee that it was out of Order to refer to the general tendency of the Bill, and he moved that the hon. Member for Meath be not further heard in this debate.

THE CHAIRMAN

said, that the hon. Member for North Warwickshire had not fully gathered the ruling which he had laid down. The rule was, that matters to be debated in Committee should not be discussed on a Motion to report Progress.

MR. DODSON

thought that the Committee would make more rapid progress if hon. Members would confine their remarks to the discussion of the subject-matter of the Bill, leaving it to the Chairman to call attention to any departure from the point of Order. His humble advice was, that the hon. Member for Meath be allowed to make his address to the Committee, whether long or short, subject to the interposition of the Chairman when out of Order.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, he would venture, following the other hon. Gentleman, to make an appeal to the Committee to go on with this Bill. As he understood, the object of the hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell) in moving to report Progress, was to suggest that, the 3rd clause having been passed, a great deal of the rest of the Bill was unnecessary. But he begged to point out that it was not competent to the Government to entertain that view. The object of the Bill was to enable the Crown by Order in Council to confederate certain Colonies and States, and the greater portion of the Bill consisted of provisions regulating the power of the Crown in making those Orders in Council. It was for the Committee to say whether those conditions should be imposed on the Crown. The Bill was a lengthy one, no doubt; but if the Committee would fairly grapple with it, and go through the clauses without distracting their attention by matters which were really outside the clauses, it would be possible, he thought, to make very good progress to-night. He earnestly entreated them to go on with the Bill in that way. His hon. Friend the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies had given notice that he proposed to omit a considerable number of clauses as not being absolutely necessary, and he hoped the Committee would refrain from discussing those clauses when they came to them. If those clauses were laid aside, the number remaining would be manageable; and, though some of them would require discussion, they might, he hoped, get through the Bill to-night. What had passed would sufficiently indicate the temper of the House—that they were determined to persevere with the Bill. [Cheers.] He was most reluctant to enter into personal controversy—their object was to get on with Business. He hoped that this discussion would now close, that the Motion of the hon. Member for Dungarvan would be withdrawn, and that the Committee would proceed with the clause. The very next clause the Government intended to withdraw — but, unquestionably, it would be their duty to support the rulings of the Chair. [Cheers.] The Government were determined to do so [Cheers], and the Committee, he was sure, would do so—[Cheers]—the hon. Member for Meath had expressed his readiness to be guided by the rulings of the Chair, and he hoped he and his Friends would do so.

MR. PARNELL

quite re-echoed what the Chancellor of the Exchequer had said—that all Members should be guided by the rulings of the Chair. But the Question which had been asked by the hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell), and not answered, was whether the Government had not in fact obtained all the powers that were requisite; and, if so, what was the use of proceeding with the other parts of the Bill?

SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL

observed that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had distinctly answered that Question. He stated that under Clause 3 the Government had obtained too much power, and the subsequent clauses were in restraint of that power.

MR. PARNELL

said, the subsequent clauses gave power for a federal union and nothing else.

MR. O'DONNELL

said, he would withdraw his Motion to report Progress.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Question again proposed, That Clause 4 be postponed?

MR. O'DONNELL

objected to the withdrawal of the clause, because it was the only clause which enlightened the Committee as to one of the most' important proposals of the Bill. If the clause were withdrawn he could not consistently proceed with some of the Amendments of which he had given Notice relating to subsequent clauses— all his Amendments were linked together.

THE CHAIRMAN

said, the Motion before the Committee was not the withdrawal but the postponement of the clause; and to discuss any Amendment upon the clause would be out of Order.

SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL

said, some explanation was due to the Committee with regard to the change of face just effected by the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary. He desired to know if it was the intention of the Government to drop the clause altogether, or did they intend that it should be discussed hereafter? He considered the clause to be one of very great importance.

MR. J. LOWTHER

said, the course which he proposed to adopt was quite consistent with that which had been indicated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It was quite usual to defer the consideration of clauses. On arriving ultimately at the clause, he intended to propose that it should, be struck out.

SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL

said, he wished to know, what would be 'the effect of striking out the clause, and in what position the inhabitants of the Colonies therein referred to—the Orange Free State and the Transvaal Republic —would then stand?

MR. A. MILLS

said, the hon. Member for Dungarvan should raise these questions hereafter.

MR. J. LOWTHER

said, he should be departing from the general practice of the House if he replied to the question now. At the end of the Bill he would be fully prepared to answer any question.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

hoped they would not waste any more time on this question. The course taken by the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary was simply intended to save time. The only way to save time was to postpone the clause. That did not imply that the important question raised by it was struck out of the Bill. Whether this clause was in or not, the inhabitants of the Transvaal were British subjects.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

said, in his opinion, if this clause was struck out, and if the Orange Free State or the Transvaal were annexed, the inhabitants of these States all became British subjects; with this qualification, that perhaps you would have to treat the annexation as a cession of territory, and there would be a time allowed for any inhabitants who did not desire to become subjects to leave the territory.

MR. COURTNEY

said, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford had said that the object for postponing this clause was to save time. That was on the Irish plan of lengthening the blanket by cutting off a piece at the bottom to sew on the top. He would suggest that the hon. Member for Dungarvan should withdraw his Amendments, and discuss the question whether the clause should or not stand part of the Bill?

MR. SERJEANT SIMON

said, the clause proposed to be postponed was mere surplusage. The inhabitants of these provinces would be British subjects with or without the clause.

MR. J. LOWTHER

said, he was willing to accede to the proposition of the hon. Member for Liskeard (Mr. Courtney). His reason for striking out the clause was that it would eventually be surplusage.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

said, the hon. Member for Dungarvan had a right to say—"If you wish to strike out the clause, do so; but let us know whether it remains in or not. If it remains in, I shall bring on my Amendments on the Report." But if the clause was struck out, the hon. Member would be in the position of having a perfect right to ask the House to entertain any Amendments he might put on the Notice Paper, for the purpose of carrying out something he thought ought to be in the clause.

SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL

said, that after the statements of the hon. and learned Attorney General and the learned Serjeant, that the people of the districts named would have all the rights of British subjects, he was willing to consent that the clause be postponed.

LORD ESLINGTON

said, all this arose from the natural want of experience in Committee in that House of certain hon. Members opposite. They were novices to the practice, and did not fully understand what course was sometimes convenient in Committee. Their habits of industry were considerable—and he asked them, with the greatest respect and in a friendly spirit, to work a little harder at the Forms of the House.

MR. PARNELL

said, he felt very much obliged to the noble Lord for the very kind and good advice he had given them. He had always appreciated his courtesy and good nature in dealing with hon. Members on that side of the House, and in his treatment of Irish questions when he had fully understood their bearings. Clause 4 was a very important clause, and if not passed, some substitute would be required. As the clause stood at present, it would compel all the inhabitants of the Transvaal Republic to be British subjects whether they would or not. Why should the Dutch be forced to become British subjects? The hon. Member was proceeding to comment on the clause, when—

MR. E. JENKINS

rose to Order. He asked, was it competent to discuss the clause on the present Motion?

THE CHAIRMAN

said, the hon. Member was not out of Order in discussing Clause 4 on the Motion that it should be postponed; but it would be out of Order to discuss any Amendment of Clause 4.

MR. PARNELL

said, he had to express his obligation to the Chairman for the continued protection he had afforded him in the face of the persistent interruptions he had been subjected to on points of Order—and he begged to point out that in none of these had the Chairman ruled against him. The hon. Member proceeded to say that he could not concur in the dictum of the Attorney General on this question. He was sorry the hon. and learned Member for Oxford (Sir William Harcourt) was not in his place. He remembered reading, about 10 years ago, some Letters of the hon. Member on International Law, which gave him the impression that he was a sensible man, and if he were present, he might assist the Attorney General in explaining how any question of International Law could arise between this country and a people who were already British subjects. The clause, as it stood at present, compelled all the inhabitants of the Transvaal to be British subjects, whether they liked it or not. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. J. Lowther) said he intended to strike out the clause; and the Attorney General said it would amount to the same thing, for that according to International Law these people would still be British subjects. He wanted to know whether, if this clause were struck out, all the inhabitants of the country who chose might remain without the necessity of becoming naturalized British subjects?

MR. J. LOWTHER

thought the Committee ought to do one of two things. Either they ought to withdraw the clause, and, at the same time, all discussion upon it, or else they ought now to discuss the question whether the clause should stand part of the Bill. If the hon. Member for Dungarvan withdrew his Amendments, he should be most happy to answer the question which had been addressed to him; but he objected to the adoption, on a Motion to postpone the clause, of the almost unprecedented course of discussing the question "that this clause stand part of the Bill." He hoped that the hon. Member for Dungarvan would elect which course he would pursue, and that the Committee would not be entrapped into two discussions of the same subject.

SIR GEORGE BOWYER

suggested to the hon. Member for Meath that when the clause came up he should move a Proviso that these people should not be British subjects.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

hoped the hon. Member would respond to this appeal, and withdraw his Amendment. He could not in his experience remember a case in which, when a Government wished to drop a clause, any Member tried to force a Committee to discuss it. He must, therefore, call on the hon. Member, unless he wished to confirm the opinion of those who thought his object was to waste time and prevent the progress of the Bill, to accept what he believed was the almost universal course— namely, not to insist on the discussion of a clause which the Government intended to drop. The question whether the clause should be dropped or not was a fair subject for discussion; but it was a waste of time to go on amending something which they knew was not to be retained in the Bill.

After some words from Mr. O'DONNELL,

MR. J. LOWTHER

said, that the difficulty the hon. Member appeared to be in was this—He did not like to be called upon to vote that this unamended clause stand part of the Bill, because if amended as he wished it to be, it would then have his approval. He, (Mr. Lowther) therefore, would make this suggestion. He would raise no objection to the Amendments if they were proposed without speeches, and if it were agreed that the Question should afterwards at once be put that the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

MR. O'DONNELL

accepted the proposal, observing that the hon. Member in making it evidently relied on the strength of the majority of Noes which he could command.

The Amendments were then put, and agreed to, as follows:— In page 2, line 29, leave out " admission into, "and insert "perfectly voluntary and uncoerced accession to;" in page 2, line 31, after " persons," insert "without distinction of race or religion," and leave out " and enjoying the rights of citizenship within; " and in page 2, line 33, after "subjects," insert "or subjects of any Foreign State, African, or other."

MR. PARNELL

said, he too, had an Amendment on the Paper.

MR. J. LOWTHER

said, he would not object to that either.

SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL

said, that Amendment would stultify the Bill— which, perhaps, was intended by the hon. Member.

MR. J. LOWTHER

said, it would not signify at all.

Amendment made, in page 2, line 33, after "shall," insert "if they so desire it, and go through the form to be hereafter provided."

Question proposed "That the Clause as amended, stand part of the Bill."

MR. O'DONNELL

thereon proceeded to argue that the clause as amended was necessary in order to provide safeguards not only for the rights of English colonists, but to those whose citizenship, commenced under the Dutch Government and whom we had now transferred without consulting them, and of the large number of Native inhabitants who without their own consent were made subjects of the Queen. He contended that it was only right to introduce a special provision allowing a right of option within a fairly limited period to the inhabitants of these States. The hon. Member was proceeding to call attention to International Law so far as affected the question, when—

MR. WHALLEY

rose to Order. He contended that the hon. Member, in dealing with the question, was not in Order. His hon. Friends had made a gallant effort to put a stop to the Business of the House, but he thought they were not in Order in discussing this question which had nothing to do with the subject matter of the clause. ["Order!"]

MR. BIGGAR

contended that the hon. Member for Dungarvan was in Order. [Loud cries of "Order!"]

MR. GOLDNEY

immediately asked, whether the hon. Member for Cavan was in Order in addressing the Committee?

THE CHAIRMAN

said, he had ventured last evening to lay down that it was quite competent for a Member to refer to such a subject, at the same time that it was not in Order for him to enter into a lengthy disquisition upon it.

After further remarks from Mr. O'DONNELL,

MR. PARNELL

again rose to speak; but his attempt—for the hon. Member had now addressed the House many times on this Question—being put down by overwhelming cries for a Division, the hon. Member moved to report Progress.

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

The Committee divided:—Ayes 3; Noes 149: Majority 146.—(Div. List, No. 268.) [B.M.]

AYES — Kirk, G. H. O'Donnell, F. H.
Power, J. O'C.
TELLERS—Mr. Parnell and Mr. Biggar.
MR. BIGGAR

immediately moved that the Chairman do leave the Chair. The Motion being received with much dissatisfaction, Mr. Biggar explained that he made the Motion with the view of affording his hon. Friend the Member for Meath the opportunity of addressing the Committee. [Cries of "Order!"] It was right that the hon. Member should be heard. ["Order!"] If these interruptions were continued, he would insist on his Motion that the Chairman leave the Chair—if they would give the hon. Member a hearing he would withdraw it. "[Order!"]

MR. J. GOLDSMID

rose to Order. The hon. Member for Cavan had acted as a Teller on the last Division, and he wished to ask whether, under the new Rules, the hon. Member was not disqualified from making the present Motion?

THE CHAIRMAN

ruled that the hon. Member was in Order.

MR. BIGGAR

asked, whether his hon. Friend the Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell) was precluded from speaking on the Motion that the Chairman leave the Chair?

THE CHAIRMAN,

in reply, read the Resolution as follows:— That, in Committee of the whole House, no Member have power to move more than once, during the Debate on the same Question, either that the Chairman do report Progress or that the Chairman do leave the Chair, nor to speak more than once to such Motion: and that no Member who has made one of those Motions have power to make the other on the same question.

MR. PARNELL

rose (amid continued cries) to point out that in the Notice of Motion which was distributed to hon. Members before the debate on the new Rules the words of the Resolution read differently. They were to the effect that no hon. Member should have power to speak more than once "to such Motion."

THE CHAIRMAN

said, that the Resolution had been amended from its original form.

MR. PARNELL

insisted that according to the Rule as it now stood he was entitled to speak on the Motion that the Chairman do leave the Chair. It was a Motion distinct from the preceding Question.

[The dissatisfaction now prevailing throughout the House was so great that the hon. Member, unable to gain attention from his usual seat, advanced to the Table, from which position he again put his Question.]

THE CHAIRMAN

said, he could not undertake to say that the Member for Meath was not entitled to speak upon the Question.

MR. PARNELL

said, he wished to ask his hon. Friend the Member for Cavan to withdraw his Motion. If the Committee would only listen for a few minutes to what he had to say in reply to the statements of the hon. and learned Attorney General in reference to International Law—[Loud cries of "No, no!"] —the information which the hon. and learned Attorney General threw out to the House having been obtained in reply to Questions he put to the hon. and learned Attorney General—["Divide!"]

MR. WHALLEY

understood the Chairman to say, in reference to this very question of International Law, that the Member for Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell) was going into the question with too much elaboration, and was, therefore, out of Order. Therefore, he wished to know whether the hon. Member for Meath was not now out of Order in entering upon the question of International Law? If he (Mr. Whalley) could only succeed in getting the Member for Meath twice out of Order, and the Member for Dungarvan twice out of Order, and a few other Irish Members twice out of Order, they would not be able to speak again in this Committee—and he should be very glad of it.

THE CHAIRMAN

said, that the hon. Member for Meath said he wished to speak for the purpose of advising the hon. Member for Cavan to withdraw his Motion; but immediately the hon. Member endeavoured to return to a Question which had already been disposed of—in doing which he was out of Order.

MR. BIGGAR

again rose to speak; but

THE CHAIRMAN

said, the hon. Member was not entitled to address the Committee, unless to withdraw his Motion.

MR. BIGGAR

said, that was the very object for which he had risen.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

The Question having been again proposed,

MR. PARNELL

again addressed the Committee at considerable length, but his speech was received with continued cries of remonstrance and dissatisfaction and calls for a Division. At length—

Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 2; Noes 134: Majority 132. — (Div. List, No. 269.) [B.M.]

AYES— Kirk, G. H. Power, J. O'C.
TELLEES—Mr. Parnell and Mr. Biggar.
MR. GOLDNEY

said, before the Committee proceeded further he desired to suggest a course which would in some way shorten their labours and put an end to scenes which many of them had witnessed with regret. He had read the Bill through carefully, and it appeared to him—as, indeed, it had been admitted by many Members—that the whole principle and all the powers that Parliament wished to invest the Crown with were practically contained in the third clause, which was already passed. The remainder consisted of details, which might be left to the Colonial Legislatures. As the Bill stood with Clause 3 in it, it was workable and could be put in operation. He wished to put it to the Government whether they could not safely and fairly accept the Bill as it stood, without considering any of its details? [Mr. PARNELL: Hear, hear!] The details were not essential to the Bill, and they might be agreed to as between the Colonial Legislatures and the Colonial Office. Perhaps the simplest way of carrying out his suggestions would be for the Chairman to report to the Speaker that the Committee desired to report the Bill without further consideration of its clauses. He therefore moved that Progress be reported.

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

MR. NEWDEGATE

said, the course suggested by the hon. Member might appear convenient, but what would the effect of adopting that course be on the public mind when they knew what had taken place? [" Hear, hear!"] The Government had carried through the other House a Bill to confer on Her Majesty in Council great power, with certain limitations which the other House of Parliament deemed important. The Bill came to this House and met with obstructions offered by a very small minority. If the Government adopted the suggestion now made, they would abandon all the safeguards which were deemed essential by the other House in deference to factious opposition in this House.

MR. PARNELL

moved that those words "factious opposition" be taken down.

THE CHAIRMAN

said, the words were words very commonly used, and he did not think therefore there was any necessity for taking them down.

MR. PARNELL

said; that if the words were Parliamentary he would withdraw the Motion.

MR. NEWDEGATE

said, he thought they might have been spared the interruption, which showed the dominant spirit of the hon. Member; but now that he had raised a question of Order it ought to be stated that while the hon. Member and his Friends repudiated in this House any intention to obstruct Business, the language of the hon. Member, and of his hon. Friend sitting near him, out-of-doors was that they gloried in his obstructiveness.

MR. PARNELL,

rising to Order, called upon the hon. Member for his proofs.

THE CHAIRMAN

said, the question was hardly one of Order. The Question was the Motion to report Progress, and perhaps the hon. Member for North Warwickshire would consider whether his observations were germane to that Question.

MR. NEWDEGATE

said, the Motion was preliminary to the abandonment of the remainder of the Bill, and as a specific reason had been given for the Motion he thought he had a right to comment on the reasons assigned for it. As he was saying—he asserted that the hon. Members for Meath and Cavan had, out of the House, proclaimed their success in obstructing its Business. ["Hear, hear!"] Referring to the night when the House was detained till a very late hour, extending its sitting into the following morning, it was reported in The Manchester Examiner of the 16th of July, that the hon. Member for Cavan had used these expressions— Speaking of the action of Irish Members in the House of Commons on the night when the sitting was prolonged until past seven o'clock in the following morning, Mr. Biggar said, by what they did they covered themselves with glory, and if this could be done by two or three Members, what would 60 be able to do? He was lamenting that the Irish Members did not support him in this course of obstruction, and if this were a correct report—

MR. BERESFORD HOPE

rose to Order. What the hon. Member was quoting might be very interesting, but, for his part, he did not see what it had to do with the question before the Committee.

THE CHAIRMAN

reminded the hon. Member for North Warwickshire of a very ancient rule, that "he who digressed from the matter to fall upon the person" committed a breach of Order.

MR. NEWDEGATE

said, he was speaking to the reasons assigned for the proposed abandonment of the remainder of the Bill, which abandonment for such reasons would be derogatory to the House. All that had happened showed that the Government were anxious to pass some Bill, that they were indifferent to the restrictions upon the exercise of that which would become part of, or equivalent to, the Prerogative under this Bill, so that they could pass it: they were therefore ready to abandon the remaining clauses of the Bill, and for this purpose were availing themselves of the obstructiveness of a few hon. Members in order to coerce the action of the House. This was a very questionable proceeding. He lamented that the House had manifested so much patience as it had done when the Members for Meath and Cavan had so strained their privileges as Members of the House, and when they had so long acted in a manner disrespectful to the House. He should not oppose the action of the Government; but when it was proposed to omit those clauses of the Bill which contained the definitions and restrictions that alone rendered safe the exercise of the powers conferred by the Bill, he could not help deprecating the course which the Government were prepared to pursue.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

said, he could quite understand the remarks of the hon. Member for North Warwickshire, although he could not agree with him. He had studied the actual Bill more than the hon. Member for North Warwickshire had done, and the alleged limitations introduced into the Bill in the other House were, to his mind, no real limitations. If the Government, on their own responsibility, were prepared to accept the suggestion of the hon. Member for Chippenham (Mr. Goldney), he should not think it necessary to protest against it. He wished, however, to state that on his own side of the House they were as determined as Members of the Ministerial side to support the Government in carrying this Bill. It would be most inconvenient if, in consequence of anything that had happened, the Committee should be prevented from debating and considering any clause that really required discussion; but he thought that the Government might fairly ask hon. Members on both sides of the House to assist them at any sacrifice of time in getting this Bill made into law. [Cheers.] Whether it was well-advised in the Government to introduce so important a Bill so late in the Session, and whether the Colonial Secretary would not have done well to be satisfied with the annexation of the Transvaal and to put off the Bill until next Session, he would not now discuss; but he was quite sure that for this Bill now to be thrown out in consequence of any opposition from so small a number of Members would be a most destructive proceeding. [Loud cheers.] Hon. Members on both sides must make up their minds to incur some personal sacrifice, and the Bill might require some very late Sittings. He was one of those who wished to test their present Rules and put them to the fullest proof before he admitted that they were not sufficient, and the Rules of the House permitted their sitting from now indefinitely. [Cheers.] If the Government came to the conclusion that the Com- mittee ought to proceed with the Bill at this sitting, he was ready at some sacrifice, and forgetting that he was now in his 60th year, to give them all the support in his power. [Cheers.] He could not sit down without expressing his great pain and regret that it should be necessary, in order to get the Bill passed, to make any such statement or announce any such intention. But it had come to this—that they must not allow the real Business of Parliament to be defeated, and the House to be made the laughingstock of the country. [Cheers.]. A term had been used in the Lobby, and he did not see why it should not be used in the House—that "relays" of Members might be necessary to assist each other in passing this Bill. He saw no objection to this course, because he wished to see how far it would enable the House to get through its legislation without being obliged to submit to the permanent loss of its privileges. Although he would not object to giving up the clauses, he would advise the Government to stand by the Bill. [Cheers.]

MR. PELL,

after the manly and straightforward speech of the right hon. Member for Bradford, trusted that the Government would take heart. Instead of sacrificing the clauses of the Bill, he hoped that the Government would be prepared to sacrifice some time and to stand by their guns. [Cheers.] He should regret if the Government by a change of front should lead the country to believe that three or four Members below the Gangway opposite had succeeded in their purpose of obstructing the progress of this Bill.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

hoped that the Committee would waste no more time over this matter. The Bill had been so framed that by passing the 3rd clause the most important point had been attained. With regard to the remaining clauses, his hon. Friend (Mr. J. Lowther) proposed to omit several which the Government regarded as unnecessary; but he doubted whether it would be possible, without misconception, to adopt the suggestion of the hon. Member for Chippenham (Mr. Goldney). Clause 3 having been carried, the question now rested with the Committee. If the Committee were content to give the Government the great and unlimited powers conferred by Clause 3, it was not for the Government to stand in the way. Inasmuch, however, as such an alteration might be misconstrued into a change of front, he hoped that his hon. Friend (Mr. Goldney) would not press his Motion. The Government cordially appreciated the hearty support it had received from the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. W. E. Forster) throughout the progress of this Bill. It was, of course, unpleasant to think that long and protracted Sittings might be required; but it was necessary for the Government, at whatever sacrifice, to press on the Bill—especially with those clauses which were essential. When the Committee came to the clauses which the Government proposed to omit, he trusted that they might be allowed to be negatived without further discussion. Several clauses remained on which a discussion might fairly be taken. He hoped, therefore, there would now be a display of the businesslike character of the House—that the Motion would be withdrawn, and the consideration of the clauses it was proposed to retain be proceeded with. [Cheers.]

MR. GOLDNEY

expressed his readiness, after what had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford and his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to withdraw his Motion.

THE CHAIRMAN

having stated the Question, That leave be given to withdraw the Motion?

MR. COURTNEY,

as one of those who had opposed the Bill, called upon the Committee to consider the position in which they were placed. The hon. Member opposite (Mr. Pell) said he knew little or nothing of the clauses, and his right hon. Friend the Member for Bradford intimated that the Bill was one which need not have been brought forward.

MR. PELL

What I said was, that I had no technical or very accurate knowledge of the clauses.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

I did not say that the Bill need not have been brought forward, but that it might safely have been put off till next Session. Having been brought forward, I said I thought every effort ought to be made to pass it.

MR. COURTNEY

The right hon. Gentleman thought the Bill might safely have been put off, and yet he counsels hon. Members to sit up all night to pass it. Even if they characterized the oppo- sition to the Bill as rowdyism, was not rowdyism being sought to be encountered by rowdyism. ["Oh, oh!"]

MR. WHALLEY

rose to Order. They were not discussing rowdyism, and the hon. Member seemed to wish to excite that spirit of anger the display of which he deprecated in others.

THE CHAIRMAN

said, the hon. Member for Liskeard was out of Order in applying the word "rowdyism" to the proceedings of that House.

MR. COURTNEY

said, he had not characterized the opposition to the Bill as rowdyism. What he said was, that if it were so considered, was not rowdyism encountered by rowdyism? However, he would withdraw the expression, and call on the Committee to consider its own dignity and the dignity of the House. He protested against the invitation to hon. Members to remain up all night as a proposal unworthy of the House.

MR. WHALLEY

again rose to Order, protesting against being lectured by the hon. Member for Liskeard.

THE CHAIRMAN

said, he did not think that the hon. Member had transgressed the Rules of Order. The hon. Member for Peterborough was himself out of Order in interrupting the hon. Member.

MR. COURTNEY

said, if the hon. Members who had opposed the Bill had travelled beyond their right the Chairman would have called them to Order. If, on the other hand, it was found that the Rules and Forms of the House allowed hon. Members too much liberty, they ought to be revised.

THE CHAIRMAN

again pointed out to the hon. Member that the Question before the House was, that leave be given to withdraw the Motion to report Progress.

MR. GORST

observed that hours had been wasted in interruptions, questions of Order, and irrelevant discussions. The Government were willing to withdraw certain clauses. Why should they not be allowed to do so and the Committee at once proceed to the consideration of the residue of the Bill?

SIR PATRICK O'BRIEN

gave the Government credit for honestly intending to proceed with a measure which he for one believed would be of advantage to the community. He had supported them in doing so, and hoped they would persevere if it were necessary to sit until Saturday night next. It was worth while, however, to consider whether Her Majesty's Government ought not to be content with passing three clauses, and not to ask the Committee to sit up for several nights to gain the small victory of suppressing three or four hon. Gentlemen. It was agreed that the first three clauses contained all the principle of the Bill, and he submitted that it was an unworthy threat of passing the remainder by overpowering the physical strength of their opponents.

MR. J. LOWTHER

said, the position of the Government was this—that having passed some important principles in the Bill by very large majorities, they did not feel themselves justified in asking the assent of Parliament to abandon the other valuable portions of the Bill. He regretted the obstruction and personal references which had been made, and which he thought would not tend to elevate the character of the House in the eyes of the country. He hoped they might now be allowed to resume the Bill at Clause 5, and that they should confine themselves to the Amendments on the Paper. It was undoubtedly the wish of a great majority that the Bill should be proceeded with. Some of the clauses which remained to be considered were of great importance, and it was most desirable that they should be proceeded with as quickly as possible.

MR. BIGGAR

said, the assertion of the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate), that he (Mr. Biggar) gloried in obstruction was not in accordance with the fact. He had not done so, and on the morning of the very late Sitting he was not present in the House.

MR. O'DONNELL

begged to say, in reference to the observations of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford, for whom he entertained a great respect, he should be sorry if the Committee should be guided by any wish on the part of any Gentleman, or number of Gentlemen, to turn the discussion into a question of physical endurance. For his own part, if he saw that this was to be a question of that sort, he would be no party to put to a test the physical endurance or the calibre of the right hon. Gentleman. He had very strong feelings on this Bill, but he wished to fight it fairly, according to the Rules of the House; but he begged to remind the Committee that in the event of physical endurance taking place the advantage of the odds would be by no means on the side of the majority, for six or eight Members of extraordinary physical power would be quite equal to 500 ordinary Members of that House. [Ironical cheers.]

MR. PARNELL

thought that they had better go back to the subject of the Bill. Very little time had been spent in the discussion of the Bill, and three or four hours in personal discussions; but they had not been raised by him, or by hon. Members acting with him. He thought they might make satisfactory progress with the Bill if hon. Members would not interrupt and not create personal discussions. He protested against threats being held out to him about a trial of physical endurance; and if the House of Commons divided itself into relays he and his Friends were in sufficient numbers to divide themselves into relays also.

Motion to report Progress, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 5 (Construction of subsequent provisions of Act), agreed to.

Clause 6 (Provinces).

MR. O'DONNELL

said, the Clause enacted that "the Union shall be divided into such provinces, with such names and boundaries, as the Queen may direct." He proposed to insert words which would vary the titles of the territories that might be confederated so as to distinguish between the importance of such territories.

Amendment moved, in page 3, line 1, after "provinces" insert "and dominions."—(Mr. O'Donnell.)

MR. J. LOWTHER

said, the point was a new one. He thought some practical difficulties might arise from the use of the word "dominions; " but he would consider whether anything could be done to meet the hon. Gentleman's view before the Report.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. O'DONNELL

moved to insert after "Queen," in line 2, the words "by and with the advice of the Union. Parliament."

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided: — Ayes 4; Noes 118: Majority 114.—(Div. List, No. 270.) [B.M.]

AYES — Kirk, G. H. Nolan, Captain
Power, J. O'C. Parnell, C. S.
TELLERS—Mr. O'Donnell and Mr. Biggar.

Amendment moved, line 2, to leave out "Queen may direct," and insert "general Government and Legislature of the Union may direct."—(Mr. Parnell.)

MR. LOWTHER

said, it was already provided that their consent must be obtained.

Amendment negatived.

MR. COURTNEY

moved, in line 2, after "direct," to insert the following Proviso:— Provided always, That no Colony or State shall be divided into Provinces except with the consent of the Legislature of the said Colony or State, or of some committee or other body duly appointed by such Legislature, with authority to consent to such division.

MR. GOLDNEY

rose to Order. He wished to ask, whether the Amendment was not the same in effect as that of the hon. Member for Meath, which had just been negatived?

THE CHAIRMAN

ruled that it was, and that, therefore, it could not be submitted to the Committee.

MR. COURTNEY

urged that his Amendment was different from that of the hon. Member for Meath.

THE CHAIRMAN

decided that it was substantially the same, and that, consequently, it could not be proposed.

Clause agreed to.