HC Deb 29 February 1888 vol 322 cc1766-74
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH) (Strand, Westminster),

in rising to move the adoption of the next Rule, said, the House would remember that one of the recommendations of the Committee which had considered the question of Procedure in 1886 was to confine the proceedings on the Address to one stage only. The Rule now proposed to allow Amendments to be moved on the Address, but would prevent their being considered on different stages as had become the practice in recent years. By the Rule only one opportunity of moving Amendments would be given—namely, upon the first stage of the Address, and when that stage was gone through, the Address would be settled once for all.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the stages of Committee and Report on the Address to Her Majesty to convey the thanks of the House for Her Majesty's Most Gracious Speech to both Houses of Parliament, at the opening of the Session, be discontinued." — (Mr. W. H. Smith.)

MR. HENEAGE (Great Grimsby),

in moving an Amendment to the Motion, said, he was very glad to support the Rule as it now stood; but in his opinion it was not nearly sufficient to meet the requirements of the case, because the House was left practically in the same position as before, except with regard to the one stage of the Report. His Amendment would have the effect of placing the Address in the same position, as that which it had always occupied in olden days. When an Address was moved in reply to the Speech of Her Majesty's Government a Vote of Want of Confidence in the Government might be proposed, and under the Rule as it stood it would be possible for any number of Amendments to be moved by any number of Members who wished to move them. If this Amendment were adopted it would impose a material restriction upon the time occupied in the consideration of the Address. If there were any points on which a large number of Members wished to support a particular principle, it was very easy to put pressure on the Government to give a day in the same way as it had been given to his hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Hackney (Sir Charles Russell) for the consideration of the Trafalgar Square question. The advantage to be gained by the Amendment was in not requiring a large number of Members to give up the days they had acquired by the ballot in order that a few Members might bring forward their hobbies on the Address in reply to Her Majesty's Gracious Speech. Hon. Members had now to run the chances of the ballot before they could obtain a day, which those Members who ventilated grievances on the Address had not. He knew that the Amendment would not be approved by the two Front Benches; but he would point out that the Ministry of the day would not lose a single Government night however long the Address went on. The occupants of the Front Benches got the lion's share of the speaking as it went on; whereas the result to private Members was that they lost every single day, as well as other days afterwards. The House had sat last Session for 15 days discussing the Address, and private Members had lost nine of them, and the Government took six more private Members' nights for the Procedure Rules. In regard to the present Session, private Members had already lost six nights and the Government four; but the Government had taken four nights for the Procedure Rules. It would, therefore, be seen that it was entirely a question for private Members. Were they willing to give up the days they had obtained by ballot for discussing such subjects as were interesting to those engaged in trade, agriculture, or the fisheries. Were hon. Members who had already obtained days to give them up so that other hon. Members might move Amendments on the Address, which were of no interest except to those, who brought them forward? When once a day obtained by a private Member was taken away that Member was prevented from obtaining a first place again, or had to wait until such a late period of the Session that it was useless to bring forward the subject he desired to ventilate, however. Important it might be. His reason in proposing the Amendment was to protect private Members in this respect. Members came down now very early in order to secure a place in the ballot. Something like 200 Motions for the introduction of Bills were balloted for on the first day of the Session. The hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) and he (Mr. Heneage) were most fortunate in the ballot, and the hon. Member for the City of Cork might have taken an early day in February, and he (Mr. Heneage) an early day in March. What, however, was the effect of prolonging the debate on the Address? The hon. Member for the City of Cork selected the 21st March, and he (Mr. Heneage) had to wait until April. This fact, he thought, showed that a large amount of time, which belonged to private Members, was wasted by the prolongation of the debate on the Address. He had no desire to limit any debate on an important question of foreign policy, and if the Opposition or any other Member had a sufficient following, they would be able to bring forward a Vote of Want of Confidence, or force the Government to give them a day. The hon. and gallant Member opposite (Captain Cotton) proposed to amend the Amendment, and to limit the debate still further, and suggested as an Amendment that the Motion should be put on the same day on which it was proposed, instead of not later than the third day of the debate. Outside the House there was a very strong feeling among the constituencies that a large amount of time was wasted upon the Address. He begged to move the Amendment, which stood, on the Paper in his name.

Amendment proposed, In line 1, to leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "the Address to her Majesty be restricted to a Motion conveying the thanks of the House for Her Majesty's Most Gracious Speech, and promising the careful attention of the House to the subjects which Her Majesty has recommended to their consideration, and such Motion shall be put without Amendment not later than the third day of the Debate thereon, unless the House shall otherwise order."—(Mr. Heneage.)

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

CAPATAIN COTTON (Cheshire, Wirral),

who had an Amendment on the Paper to the Amendment under discussion to leave out the words" not later than the third day of the Debate thereon," in order to insert "on the same day on which it is proposed, "said, that he did not intend to move that Amendment. He would support the Amendment of the right hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Heneage) and withdraw his own. He should, however, be glad to hear exactly what the right hon. Gentleman meant by providing that the debate on the Address should terminate not later than the third day. Did the right hon. Gentleman mean the third day according to the day of the week, or the third day of the debate? The House generally met, at the opening of the Session, on a Thursday and was continued on a Friday, and he wished to know whether it was intended that the debate should be continued and closed on the Monday, or whether it should be stopped by the intervention of Saturday when the House did not sit? An article in The Spectator of Saturday last called attention to the intellectual suffocation, which the debate on the Address involved in stifling very important questions. The right hon. Gentleman and himself were desirous of conferring benefit upon suffering humanity by limiting the debate on the Address and returning to the old practice of that House. There could be no doubt that the lengthened debates on the Address which they had had of late years were parasites of modern growth, and disease which were unknown formerly. He desired, as far as it was possible, to return to the old practice and limit the debates to one issue—whether confidence was to be continued in the Government or not. The constituencies at the present moment were so disgusted at the length to which the debates on the Address were carried, that they were frequently reminding their Representatives that they were sent to the House of Commons not to be consumers of time, but to be producers of legislation. He hoped the House would see that, in order to economize time, the Rules must be made applicable to the new circumstances under which they lived. It was, therefore, necessary to curtail the debate on the Address as much as possible. The only ground that would justify a lengthened debate on the Address was that it should turn to some definitely useful purpose—such as turning out the Government of the day. In 1859, the noble Marquess the Member for the Rossendale Division of Lancashire (the Marquess of Hartington) brought forward a direct Vote of Want of Confidence against Lord Derby's Government after the Queen's Speech, and it was carried after three days' debate. He contended that that was the only legitimate form in which Amendments on the Address should be allowed to be moved. There was another instance, which occurred two years ago, when the Government of the day was thrown out on an Amendment to the Address moved by the hon. Member for the Bordesley Division of Birmingham (Mr. Jesse Collings); although the hon. Member got small thanks for what he did. But neither in 1859 nor in 1886 did the Government of the day come into Office with a majority of the House of Commons, and they resigned in consequence. On the other hand, he might quote the case of Sir Robert Peel, who was defeated, in 1835, by a majority of 7 in a full House of 611 Members, but who declined to resign on that Vote. With these examples before them, and knowing how very much the debates on the Address had extended of late years, he hoped the House would strengthen the hands of the Government by passing the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Great Grimsby, and do all it could to check this mischievous innovation which consumed so much time of the House in the first nights of the Session.

MR. W. E.GLADSTONE (Edinburgh, Mid Lothian)

said, the doctrine that it was desirable, if they could, to get back to the old practice in respect of the debate on the Address, as it was termed, was one which he heartily commended, and on every occasion he had done all that was in his power to promote the adoption of that course by following the Mover and Seconder of the Address in the debate when he had been Leader of the Opposition. In his opinion, the best chance of bringing the Address, under ordinary circumstances, back to the old wholesome condition was to relieve the minds of hon. Members—independent Members—of the apprehension which the experience of last year and this year had greatly tended to create and confirm—that their private days were about to be taken away from them. That was a state of things in which the rights of private Members to their days should be scrupulously respected, unless the House of Commons, for some very great purpose, got rid at once of the Address, and proceeded to the transaction of Business. At the same time, he thought it was quite impossible to sup- port the Amendment of his right hon. Friend (Mr. Heneage), or the still more stringent Amendment of the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for the Wirral Division of Cheshire (Captain Cotton), on the Ministerial side of the House.

CAPTAIN COTTON

said, he had withdrawn his Amendment.

MR. W. E. GLADSTONE

said, he would say, then, that it was impossible to agree with the speech by which the hon. and gallant Gentleman supported the Amendment. The hon. and gallant Gentleman, if he (Mr. W. E. Gladstone) heard him rightly, appeared to be of opinion that a Vote of Want of Confidence might properly be moved on the occasion, of the debate on the Address; but if he was of that opinion, the Resolution of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Heneage), which he was going to support, directly excluded those Votes of Want of Confidence. There were two questions of the greatest importance raised. One of them was the limitation of the debate to three days; and there was the question whether, when they had a debate on the Address, it would not be sufficient for every reasonable purpose to pursue that debate, subject to the protection already provided by the Closure Rule against its undue prolongation; and the other question was still more serious—namely, the question of the exclusion of a Vote of Want of Confidence on the Address. According to his recollection, the instances of moving Votes of Want of Confidence on the Address were more numerous than the hon. Gentleman supposed. The hon. and gallant Gentleman had quoted the case of Sir Robert Peel in 1835. Undoubtedly, an Amendment was carried against Sir Robert Peel by a majority of 7, and Sir Robert Peel did not resign. He would not say that Sir Robert Peel was wrong in not resigning; but unquestionably his course was a very peculiar one, and had always been the subject of much argument and much doubt. Sir Robert Peel founded his action on the special ground that he claimed from the House of Commons the right to produce his measures. But Sir Robert Peel had given the House another example himself. In 1841, when he considered that the country had returned a majority adverse to the Government of Lord Melbourne, a Vote of Want of Confi- dence was moved and carried on his part and with his support, and the Melbourne Government resigned at once. He (Mr. W. E. Gladstone) was bound to say that there could be no more unfortunate measure than to shut the door against Votes of Want of Confidence.

MR. HENEAGE

I do not propose to do so.

MR. W. E. GLADSTONE

said, that perhaps his right hon. Friend would allow him to state the reason why he took a strong view on the subject, and why he desired that Her Majesty's Government should adhere to the Rule as it stood. A Dissolution frequently arose upon the question whether the Administration of the day possessed the confidence of the country, and the voice of the people was made plain by an Election. What could be more proper than that if the Government of the day had not been able to recognize the verdict of the country without meeting Parliament, as was the case in 1874, 1868, and 1880—what could be more proper than that the House of Commons should take the very first opportunity—namely, the opportunity of the Address, of settling the question whether the Government possessed the confidence of the country or not? It appeared to him that his right hon. Friend had stumbled in this question of Votes of Want of Confidence, and he thought it was quite impracticable to hold an opposite doctrine to that which declared that an opportunity should be afforded in the Address for raising the question of confidence. He was not sure that he could not quote other instances than those, which he had named, but he would not trouble the House with them, because those mentioned were sufficient. Apart from that, he would submit that the protection afforded by the closure, if sufficient for other debates, was quite sufficient to guard those on the Address. He quite granted that the proceedings on the Address had in some Sessions been unduly prolonged, though he did not think there had been any serious ground of complaint this year. He was sure it was unlikely that, under ordinary circumstances, abuses would arise; but, seeing that they might arise, there should be a Rule in existence, which might be readily applied to them.

MR. HENEAGE

said, he had not thought it necessary to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman; but he had dis- tinctly stated that he wished Votes of Want, of Confidence to be omitted from his Amendment. If the Amendment did not carry out that object, he was ready to accept any words that might be inserted which would have that effect. If the Leader of the House declined to accept the Amendment he would not press it.

MR. W. H. SMITH

said, he was not prepared to go as far as the right hon. Member for Great Grimsby proposed, because he thought that in so doing they would be tying their hands most unnecessarily in the event of circumstances arising which might require that a considerable discussion should take place on the Address. He preferred that liberty should be given to the House to consider the Address to the extent to which, in the particular circumstances of the day, it might be deemed necessary to consider it. He regretted, and he was sure the right hon. Gentleman regretted also, that there had been an undue prolongation of the debates on the Address; but it was a responsibility, which rested upon the House of Commons and not upon the Government. He trusted that in future hon. Members would evince a greater sense of their responsibility towards the country, and that they would impose some restraint upon this question, in addition to those which the Government thought it necessary to pass for the conduct of the Business of the House. Many circumstances might arise which would render it exceedingly unwise to shorten the discussion on the Address. The right hon. Gentleman said that he would except from this Motion Votes of Want of Confidence; but if the right hon. Gentleman would consider the matter, he would find that every Amendment to the Address was substantially, as a matter of fact, an expression of Want of Confidence by the person who moved the Amendment on the Government of the day. If an Amendment of that kind were carried, the usual consequence was that the Government resigned their position, and gave place to the Opposition. It might happen that the conduct of foreign affairs, or of affairs at home, might require full discussion; and therefore, looking at the matter from any point of view, he thought it would be unadvisable to put an absolute term as to the discussion of the Address. He, however, relied with confidence on hon. Members on both sides of the House exercising a greater sense of their responsibilities with a view of shortening the debates. He quite agreed with the remarks which had been made that at the present moment private Members suffered much more largely than the Government from the continuation of these debates. Of course, it was impossible to enter upon general Business until the debate on the Address was concluded, and private Members who introduced measures early in the Session found the days they had obtained taken away from them.

MR. SPEAKER

asked if the right hon. Member for Great Grimsby withdrew the Amendment?

MR. HENEAGE

Yes.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Main Question put.

Resolved, That the stages of Committee and Report on the Address to Her Majesty to convey the thanks of the House for Her Majesty's Most Gracious Speech to both Houses of Parliament, at the opening of the Session, be discontinued.