§ MR. PARNELLsaid, he was sorry to make a complaint, but he considered the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had treated his (Mr. Parnell's) Friends and himself very badly with regard to the Irish Estimates. At the commencement of the Session, the right hon. Gentleman intimated his intention of taking the Estimates as continuously as possible until 1660 he got through them, doing, if possible, without Votes on account; and, with regard to those for English and Imperial purposes, he had certainly kept his word. He had endeavoured, with the utmost persistence, night after night, to obtain money for those purposes; and, while not finding fault with him for that, he (Mr. Parnell) must say the Irish Estimates had been unfairly kept back. Before Whitsuntide, the Chancellor of the Exchequer postponed the Queen's Colleges Votes until that day—Monday—and the House had now been informed that those Votes had been further postponed until the mythological time arrived for the introduction of an Intermediate Education Bill in the House of Lords. Although not favoured with his reasons for this step, he was sure the Chancellor of the Exchequer had good and valid ones for it, and that he would not have adopted a course, which appeared like a breach of promise to the Irish Members, if he had not a good reason in his own mind for so acting. He (Mr. Parnell) did not so much find fault with the postponement of the Queen's Colleges Votes as he did with the postponement of the Estimates for general purposes in Ireland. In times past, it had always been a matter of complaint with the Irish Members that the Irish Estimates were not taken until so late in the Session as to make it almost impossible to allow of any discussion on them. He and many others had hoped that this Session they would have been brought forward at such a period that it would have been practical to have discussed them fully and fairly, and as they had never yet been discussed. The Irish Members desired on such Estimates to have an opportunity of bringing forward many important questions of principle and detail, and to try and remedy several grievances of which they complained. But now, it seemed that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, having begun under such good auspices, having got the English and Imperial Estimates before the House, was going to throw the Irish Estimates over to the end of the Session. He was quite sure that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not willingly or knowingly do the Irish Members an injury in that respect; but, as days went by, and they got near the end of July, it became increasingly hard to discuss, with any 1661 effect or any satisfaction, Estimates, or to remedy grievances. Irish Estimates had never been fairly discussed since he had had the honour of a seat in that House, and it was a matter of great disappointment to him, just as it appeared likely that they would have the full opportunity which they had never yet had of discussing them, that they should again be postponed. That was not the first time they had been postponed during the present Session. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had gone here, there, and everywhere; he had gone backward and forward in order to avoid the Irish Estimates. He (Mr. Parnell) did not lay any particular stress upon the postponement of the Queen's Colleges Votes; he alluded to the other Irish Estimates, concerning which there were many important questions to bring before the House; and he appealed to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to allow the Irish Estimates, apart from these relating to the Queen's Colleges, to come forward sooner than he now intended. He did not wish to criticize at all severely the conduct of the Government in the management of Business. He knew they managed their matters with the best intentions; and although good intentions were invariably successful, he must say this Session their intentions regarding the Estimates did not deserve to be successful. Look at their conduct that night, for instance——
§ MR. SPEAKERI would call the attention of the hon. Member to the fact that the Question before the House is, that this House will, upon Wednesday next, resolve itself into Committee of Supply, and he must confine himself to that Motion. The general conduct of the Government in the management of Business is not before the House.
§ MR. PARNELLdid not quite understand when he could discuss the conduct of the Government in fixing Wednesday next for a particular class of Estimates.
§ MR. SPEAKERBy the Standing Orders of the House it must be so fixed.
§ MR. PARNELLsaid, he did not wish to do anything which was out of Order; but he wanted to thoroughly understand his position in reference to these Estimates. That night Supply was the fourth Order, and the evening had been spent on the three previous Orders. Consequently, 1662 they had not got into Supply at such a reasonable time as they had hoped; and the Government, in, the exercise of their discretion—and, he admitted, a very proper exercise of their discretion—had not attempted to get into Supply at such a late hour. But with reference to the question of the time at which they proposed to take Supply, he thought he was entitled to criticize their conduct on the matter of the Irish Estimates. The Army Estimates, which had been down for that night, were to be fixed for the next day, and he asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what necessity there was for putting the Army Estimates before the Irish Estimates, which were of a much more pressing character? He knew the fixing of any class of Estimates for Tuesday would be more or less a matter of form; but, at the same time, he urged the Chancellor of the Exchequer to bring forward the Irish Estimates, and not follow the precedent of keeping them back to a time when they could not be properly discussed or decided upon. There were questions of the greatest importance involved in these Estimates, and he desired to abolish the custom of treating them as matters of form only. He had ventured, perhaps, at too great length, to direct the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the House to the matter. He knew the difficulty of discussing Estimates towards the end of July, as, in Sessions which were past, he had felt a sort of weariness when that period arrived. As it seemed likely that the same course would be pursued this Session, he urged upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer the propriety of at once bringing on the Irish Estimates, instead of taking the remaining five or six Votes of the Army Estimates, which were not of a pressing character. He wished to explain that in what he had said he did not mean to criticize the conduct of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in postponing the Queen's College Estimates.
§ MR. SPEAKERI have to remind the hon. Member that he has repeated the same argument over and over again, and that he is thus trying very severely the forbearance of the House.
§ MR. PARNELLsaid, he had no wish to do that; but it was almost impossible for him to say anything without trying the forbearance of the House. He would 1663 move that Supply be taken on Tuesday, instead of on Wednesday.
§ MR. SPEAKERThat is a Motion which cannot be put. It is contrary to the Standing Orders of the House that Supplies should be proposed, unless recommended by Ministers of the Crown.
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, when the hon. Gentleman spoke of the Government having repeatedly postponed the Irish Estimates, he forgot that the practice had been, when the Irish Votes were reached, that the Irish Members objected to proceed with them. The Government would be most anxious to go on as soon as they could with the Irish Votes, but it would be inconvenient to take them before the Army Estimates. At the moment, he thought it best to conclude an irregular discussion by explaining that when the Order of the Day for Supply was reached at too late an hour on Monday, it was a Standing Order to postpone it to Wednesday.
§ MR. O'SHAUGHNESSYsaid, he could not too strongly impress upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer the necessity of giving time for a full discussion of the Irish Estimates. There were many questions relating to them to be considered, and he believed a full discussion on one occasion would obviate a repetition of the arguments at any future time. Irish Members only objected to proceed with Votes when the hour was too late for full and fair discussion.
§ MR. O'DONNELLsaid, all must feel that the Chancellor of the Exchequer meant to be courteous, and was courteous; but he very seldom gave the Irish Members any real satisfaction. To place himself in Order, he would move the adjournment of the House. The Irish Members felt that the course which the Government adopted towards them provoked them to a certain extent to assume a retaliatory attitude. ["Oh, oh!"] He meant exactly what he said. If hon. Gentlemen opposite would enter into the feelings of Irish Members, who desired to deal carefully and fully with the Estimates relating to their own country, and would give them the opportunity of so doing, it would save a great deal of the spirit of hostility which often arose. This year the Irish Estimates were to be put off just as in previous years, and they were not to have an opportunity of 1664 fairly discussing matters of the highest possible moment to the Irish people. It unfortunately happened that Ireland was a distinct country, and hon. Gentlemen, by their treatment, tended to make it more distinct every day. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether he was addressed by way of appeal, whether it was attempted to press matters on his attention by a course of conduct which tried the forbearance of his Party, or whatever was done, answered with courteous words, and nothing else. He confessed that he considered the courtesy of the Chancellor of the Exchequer an aggravation of the injury, for the bland manner of the right hon. Gentleman only deprived them of the poor luxury of picking a quarrel. He protested against the way in which the Irish Members had been treated, and he asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer to bring forward the Irish Estimates at such a time as would enable Irish Members to discuss them fully.
§ MR. BIGGARseconded the Motion of the hon. Member for Dungarvan for the adjournment of the House. In doing so, he was bound to make a few remarks on the observations which the right hon. Gentleman in the Chair had addressed to his hon. Friend the Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell). From his (Mr. Biggar's) experience of the House, he believed it would be impossible for anyone to speak without repetitions. He had known cases in which eminent Members of the House and practised speakers had repeated themselves in exactly the same words. The first case which occurred to him was that of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London (Mr. Goschen), who was First Lord of the Admiralty in the late Administration. In speaking last Session, the right hon. Gentleman had, on one occasion, as pointed out to him (Mr. Biggar), by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the County of Cork, used the same expression four times in one speech. He (Mr. Biggar) remembered on another occasion noticing the utterances of the hon. and learned Gentleman the late Attorney General for England, and he found that the hon. and learned Gentleman repeated himself at least 10 times in a speech of 15 minutes. He also remembered that on one occasion the 1665 late Attorney General for Ireland repeated himself 20 times in a 10 minutes' speech. In saying this, he did not mean to infer that he had forgotten the position in which a speaker was placed by the action of these who preceded him; but he wished to show that his hon. Friend the Member for Meath was not guilty of a thing which did not fall to the share of other hon. Members in the House. Having said so much, he would proceed to give shortly his reasons for seconding the Motion for the adjournment of the House.
§ MR. DALRYMPLE rose to Order. He wished to ask, whether it was competent for any hon. Member, at that stage, to move the adjournment of the House?
§ MR. SPEAKERThe original Question was, that on Wednesday this House resolve itself into Committee of Supply. No doubt it is competent for any hon. Member to move the adjournment of the House on the debate upon that Question.
§ MR. BIGGARsaid, he supported the Motion for adjournment, because the Chancellor of the Exchequer had not replied to the questions of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Meath. Irish Members believed that a great many things relating to these Estimates required to be discussed and re-modelled; and in the interests not of the Irish Members but of the public service he asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer to give every possible opportunity for that discussion.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—(Mr. O'Donnell.)
§ SIR JOSEPH M'KENNAhoped his hon. Friend the Member for Dungarvan would not persevere in his Motion for the adjournment of the House. While agreeing as to the importance of the Irish Estimates, he regretted that hon. Members should have wasted many minutes in the discussion. The Motion for adjournment had better be withdrawn.
§ MR. PARNELLthought he might be allowed to enter somewhat freely into the matter, because he had been called to Order for repeating himself. He admitted that if he had repeated himself he was in a position which rendered him much more likely so to commit 1666 himself than was occupied by many hon. Members. Of course, he was more likely to fall into the error of repetition than the older Members of the House, and who were more experienced and more practised speakers. But he tried to repeat himself as little as possible. It was a thing he as much objected to do as he regretted to hear. He wished to point out to the House that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had not answered the question he had put to him—namely, as to whether he intended to postpone all the Irish Estimates until the Intermediate Education Bill was introduced into the House of Lords? That really meant—Did the Chancellor of the Exchequer intend to make the whole of the Irish Estimates wait upon the Queen's Colleges Estimates? He thought he had drawn a strong distinction between the Queen's Colleges and other Estimates; but the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not seem to notice that one part of his inquiry at all, although, as the right hon. Gentleman in the Chair had properly said, he had dwelt upon it and repeated it several times. Therefore, he thought that part of his inquiry might have pressed itself more upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer than it had done; and he might have told the House what he intended to do with regard to the other Irish Estimates. He could not help seeing, after what had dropped from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that these Queen's Colleges Estimates might be further postponed. He hoped the Estimates would not be left until a time when they would be obliged to take everything for granted, and he asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer to tell the House when he would take them?
§ MR. NEWDEGATEprotested against the time of the House being wasted in these unseemly discussions, and pointed out that the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell), and the hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell), by the course they were taking, were arrogating to themselves the right to regulate the Public Business of the House. The Estimates, being a part of the Business of the House, were, both by ancient custom and the Standing Orders, committed to Her Majesty's Ministers for regulation. The hon. Member for Meath had proposed to violate another Rule of the House by proposing that the Estimates 1667 should be taken on Tuesday, a day unusual for such a purpose, and upon which the Estimates could not be taken, without a suspension of the Standing Orders. He merely wished to call attention to what had happened during the last half-hour, which had been deliberately wasted by hon. Members opposite, because it tended to strengthen his impression that it was absolutely necessary that the House should frame for itself some Rules to prevent what he must consider a gross abuse of its Privileges.
§ MR. DILLWYN rose because, he said, he was desirous that they should conform to the ruling of the right hon. Gentleman in the Chair, and to the Rules of the House. His hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate) had referred to an attempt to violate the Rules of the House by taking the Estimates that day—Tuesday—instead of on Wednesday. He should like to know, whether there was any Rule to prevent Supply being taken on Tuesday; and whether it was out of Order to move the adjournment of the House on the Motion for going into Supply on Wednesday?
§ MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, his hon. Friend had misunderstood him. He did not say it was irregular to move, the adjournment of the House; but that the manner in which the time of the House had been wasted for half-an-hour was an abuse.
§ MR. DILLWYNdid not refer to the Motion for adjournment; but he understood the ruling was that Supply was to be taken by Standing Order only on Wednesday. He fancied he must have been mistaken with regard to that; and he wanted to know whether there was any Rule which would prevent the hon. Member for Meath, or anybody else, from moving an Amendment that Supply be taken on Tuesday, instead of Wednesday? He was quite aware that the Standing Order provided that Supply should be taken on Wednesday; but he was not aware that such Standing Order or Rule would prevent Supply being taken before Wednesday. He merely wished for information, because he was always desirous of obeying the ruling of the right hon. Gentleman in the Chair.
§ MAJOR NOLANremarked, that that was the sixth time the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate) 1668 had urged the House to take stringent measures against hon. Members from Ireland, so that in this respect his conduct had been perfectly consistent. The object of the hon. Member was to incite the House to take strong measures; but he (Major Nolan) hoped the House would not be actuated by any such feeling of hostility towards any section of hon. Members. He could fancy that the conduct of the hon. Member would be quite consistent if he were sitting in the French Convention of 1793, where if a man was in a minority he ran a chance of getting his head cut off.
§ MR. O'SHAUGHNESSYsaid, the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate) had made two points. The first was, that it was out of Order, and a breach of the Rules, to set up Supply for Tuesday night; and the next, that it was contrary to the traditions of the House, and an interference with the functions of the Government, to attempt to suggest anything with regard to dealing with the Estimates. He begged to protest most strongly against such a doctrine. Surely, if any hon. Member considered that any arrangement made by the Government for taking the Estimates concerning any particular branch of the public service was such as to preclude a proper discussion upon them, he had the Constitutional right to stand up and ask for some other arrangement to be made, in order that a full and proper discussion might take place. The hon. Member for North Warwickshire had made an indirect appeal to the House to take strong measures against the hon. Member for Meath, in order to repress what was, undoubtedly, their Constitutional right. He had to say, in answer to that suggestion, that any strong measures which were taken against the four or five Irish Members who had insisted upon opportunities for discussing these Estimates would bring to the front not five but 50 Irish Members who would insist on their rights.
§ MR. GRAYsaid, the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate) had characterized an attempt to elicit from the Government an intimation as to when they would bring on certain Irish Estimates as an abuse, and had endeavoured to incite the House to use strong measures to repress the right which was now enjoyed of free speech in that House. It was a fair question, 1669 whether the hon. Member was himself in Order in making such a suggestion, seeing that he was one of the Members of the Select Committee which was then sitting to consider whether any amendment in the Rules for regulating the mode of procedure in that House should be adopted or not. He (Mr. Gray) should not follow the hon. Member's example, and attempt to prejudice the House as to what changes in the Rules they should adopt; but he thought that if the House were in a position to consider this matter dispassionately, it would be much more important to discuss the conduct of the hon. Member for North Warwickshire in attempting to prejudice the House against certain hon. Members, he being a Member of the Select Committee now having the Business of the House under their consideration.
§ MR. SPEAKERI have to observe, with reference to the question raised by the hon. Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn), that the Committee of Supply can only be fixed by a Minister of the Crown; and that, according to the Standing Order, the Committee of Supply must be fixed for Monday, Wednesday, or Friday. I apprehend, however, that it might be open to any hon. Member to move, as an Amendment, that some other day should be substituted, when the Government has given Notice of their intention to take Supply on a particular day. The Question is, that this House do now adjourn.
§ Question put, and negatived.
§ Original Question put, and agreed to.
§ Committee deferred till Wednesday.