HC Deb 12 July 1881 vol 263 cc754-60

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Select Committee on the Poor Relief and Audit of Accounts (Scotland) Bill, do consist of Nineteen Members."—(The Lord Advocate.)

COLONEL ALEXANDER

said, he was surprised at the course Her Majesty's Government had taken with respect to this Bill. A short time ago a meeting of Scotch Members was held upstairs, at which he was not able to be present on account of a debate in the House; but he had taken occasion to inform himself of what took place, and he understood that an agreement was arrived at that one of the Scotch Bills before Parliament should be proceeded with this Session—the Educational Endowments Bill. He was surprised, therefore, to find that the Bill now under notice had been read a second time at a late hour a few nights before, and was now to be sent to a Select Committee. He would also beg to remind the right hon. and learned Gentleman that on the 28th of June the Prime Minister reminded the House that the 28th of June this Session was equal to the 28th of July of an ordinary Session, and that, therefore, the House had arrived at what was practically the 12th of August, and not July; and he believed it was quite unprecedented that a Bill of this importance should, on such a date, be sent to a Select Committee, nor did he understand why it should be sent to a Select Committee at all. Why not discuss it in Committee of the Whole House, like other Bills? There was nothing mysterious about the Bill, and treating it in this manner would encourage the idea that there was that about Scotch Bills that could not be understood, and English Members never would understand them so long as they were sent to Committees upstairs. Why, he wished to know, had the Bill been proceeded with? And to give the Government the opportunity of informing the House, he begged to move the adjournment of the debate.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Colonel Alexander.)

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

said, really, the vehement speech of the hon. and gallant Gentleman was entirely in consequence of his not having been at the meeting referred to; if he had been, he would have known that exactly the opposite of what he had stated took place.

COLONEL ALEXANDER

I was at a debate in the House.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

said, he was there, and in a position to state what did take place, for he happened to occupy the Chair. The course which the Lord Advocate had taken was that recommended unanimously, he believed, by the Members present at the meeting. There was no such understanding as that stated by the hon. and gallant Member, that only one Bill should be proceeded with; but, on the contrary, there was a strong opinion that two Bills should be proceeded with, and the question of this Bill was fully brought under consideration, and the suggestion of many Members who were present was unanimously adopted, that the Bill should be sent to a Committee upstairs. And yet the hon. and gallant Gentleman came now and denounced the Government for taking a course which was recommended by a majority certainly, and, he believed, unanimously, of the Scotch Members then present. There were complaints that Scotch Business was not attended to; but the very moment an attempt was made to forward a Scotch Bill a single stage, a Scotch Member rose and denounced the Government for the attempt, and did his best to obstruct the progress of the Bill—and this was being done now. This was an administrative Bill of much utility; no one ever pretended that the Government desired to press it, they desired that the Bill should be thoroughly examined. The hon. and gallant Member said that Scotch Business would never be understood, because it was sent-to a Select Committee; but surely English Bills were always sent to a Select Committee when those Bills contained matters of detail requiring careful and minute consideration. It was no great encouragement to forward Scotch Business if, when the Government were making an effort of this kind on the unanimous understanding with Scotch Members, up starts the hon. and gallant Gentleman and did his best to thwart and defeat the course taken on advice from Scotch Members.

MR. ORR-EWING

said, he must say his impression of what occurred was not the same as that of the right hon. Gentleman. He was sure that Scotch Members were delighted to have the right hon. Gentleman in the Chair, and they almost felt it did away with the desire to have a Scotch Minister of State. Probably there was only one Member who was not quite satisfied with the position there, and that was the Lord Advocate himself, for hitherto he, holding a high and honourable position, ruled supreme; but he must have felt a little overshadowed by the Home Secretary. But, at the meeting, the conclusion was this—it was a sort of dictatorial conclusion, no vote was taken, and few Members spoke—but the right hon. Gentleman, with that prescience for which he was so conspicuous, seemed to conceive the opinions of every person present—he summed up in this way, at all events, the measure that ought to be proceeded with was the Educational Endowments Bill. He said, in his me- taphorical language, that was the horse that was to win; he did not know whether a second horse might be placed at all; but he understood that if there was to be a second measure it was the Teinds Bill. Such was his impression of what took place, and all he could say was that the Bill for which the Committee was now proposed was ignored by the right hon. Gentleman as an impossible thing; and as to a Committee being proposed or suggested by himself or the Lord Advocate it never was at that meeting.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

, rising to explain, said, it was generally understood by the Scotch Members that the Bill could not be got through this Session; but it was pressed upon him that, if sent to a Select Committee, the subject might be investigated with the view of taking it up next Session.

MR. ORR-EWING

said, he would not bring his opinion against the right hon. Gentleman's recollection. No doubt, his intellect was much the keener; but, at all events, the impression on the minds of the bulk of the Members present was that it was an impossible thing, and it never suggested itself to his mind. But it was an extraordinary thing, for, if there was any measure that had general support from Scotch Members after the Educational Endowments Bill, it was the Teinds Bill. It was introduced by the Government, and read a second time, only one Scotch Member opposing it; there was no block in the way, but only Amendments, and why it had not been proceeded with he would like the Lord Advocate to explain. Every party in Scotland supported it; it had been petitioned for by many boroughs in Scotland, the only opposition being ecclesiastical, and the only Scotch Member offering opposition being the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Dick-Peddie); and yet it was said it was impossible to carry the Bill through. If there was a Committee of Scotch Members, and a Secretary of State honoured them by presiding, he ought to take a deliberate vote and not gather opinions from hearsay, and then bring up such measures as were really supported by Scotch Members, and not such as would be advantageous to a particular Party.

Mr. HEALY

asked the Lord Advocate—for he had received several letters from Scotland, and he really did not know anything about it—was it a fact that the Government did not intend to proceed beyond the Committee this year?

COLONEL ALEXANDER

said, he would ask leave to withdraw his Motion, and he would take the opportunity to disavow any intention of obstructing Scotch Business. He agreed wth the hon. Member (Mr. Orr-Ewing) that the feeling in Scotland was very much against the Government for having withdrawn the Teinds Bill. A large meeting, held in Edinburgh last winter, gave expression to a desire for legislation—

MR. SPEAKER

The hon. Member is not entitled to make a second speech in asking leave to withdraw his Motion.

COLONEL ALEXANDER

said, he would only express his great disappointment that the Bill had been withdrawn. He begged leave to withdraw his Motion.

THE LORD ADVOCATE

(Mr. J. M'LAREN) said, it was quite true that the Government did not expect to pass the measure during the present Session. So far back as 1871, a Committee of the House was appointed, who received a large quantity of evidence on the subject, and almost unanimously recommended the changes in the Poor Law of Scotland which were embodied in the Bill. Bills founded on the Report of the Committee had been introduced in successive years during the interval of 10 years, which had since elapsed, but no progress had been made, because it was impossible for the House, within a limited time, to discuss the various details of such a measure in Committee of the Whole House. Accordingly, at a meeting of Scotch Members which took place at an early period of the Session with reference to this and other forms of local government, a strong desire was expressed that the measure should be re-introduced with the view of its being considered by a Committee upstairs; and he must express his surprise that the hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. Orr-Ewing) had taken up the position he had in throwing doubt on the propriety of the course adopted, for he well remembered that at this meeting it was his suggestion that before and beyond all other reforms connected with Scotch local government the Bill for the amendment of the Poor Law ought to be introduced. He would only say, in respect to the meeting referred to by the Home Secretary, that his recollection of what took place was substantially in accord with that of his right hon. Friend. It must be quite plain that it would be impossible to expect that during the Session the Bill would be considered in Committee of the Whole House; but, looking at the fate of former Bills on the same subject, he ventured to indulge the hope that by referring it to a Committee upstairs it would be so improved and perfected as to admit of its introduction in a subsequent Session and its passage without serious opposition. As to the Teinds Bill, that was no longer before the House, it having been withdrawn last week. That it was withdrawn was due to circumstances for which he was not responsible. It was his earnest desire, if possible, to proceed with it; but at the meeting to which reference had been made, an hon. Member intimated that he was prepared to use all the Forms of the House at every stage when the Bill was before the House to prevent its passing. Now, he would appeal to hon. Members whether, under the circumstances, and knowing as he did that there was other opposition, without which that which he had mentioned would not have been sufficient—that there was a considerable body of opposition—would it have been right to keep the Bill on the Paper, when it was absolutely certain, looking at the many more important engagements of the Government, that the Bill could not be sent up to the other House in time to pass this Session?

Mr. ORR-EWING

said, he was not opposed to the improvement of Poor Law management in Scotland, and he did think it was more likely to be legislated upon this year than the Educational Endowments Bill. But that was not the decision of the Committee of Scotch Members they had heard of, and he understood that the Home Secretary was to be guided by that. He was not opposed to the Committee, late as it was; but he understood it was the intention not only to pass the Bill through Committee, but, if possible, to make it law this year; hence his opposition.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Original Question put, and agreed to.

Committee nominated, of Mr. ANDERSON, Mr. ANDREW GRANT, Mr. J. HAMILTON, Mr. M'LAGAN, Mr. HENDERSON, Mr. BOLTON, Mr. -MATHESON, Mr. MELDON, Mr. HIBBERT, Mr. ORR EWING, Mr. COCHRAN - PATRICK Mr. DALRYMPLE, Mr. JAMES CAMPBELL, Admiral Sir JOHN HAY, Mr. LODER, Colonel ALEXANDER, Mr. HEALY, Lord ELCHO, and The LORD ADVOCATE:—Five to be the quorum.

House adjourned at a quarter before Two o'clock.