THE PRIME MINISTER'S ABSENCE FROM DEBATES. (Hansard, 4 April 1905)

§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGE (Carnarvon Boroughs)
asked the Patronage Secretary to the Treasury, who, so far as he could see, was the only member of the Government who really discharged his duties faithfully, whether, inasmuch as the Prime Minister did not read the newspapers or read the proceedings of the House, which ho presumed to lead, he would call the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact that a Motion had been carried to-night which practically reversed the opinion in regard to the Colonial Conference expressed by the Prime Minister two or three weeks ago. In the course of the discussion then the Prime Minister stated that he thought the conference ought to be free and unfettered.

§ MR. LOUGH (Islington, W.)
asked how far this procedure was to be carried. Could the right hon. Gentleman announce on behalf of the Prime Minister whether it would go on to-morrow and to-morrow week, and every Tuesday and Wednesday when private Members' Motions were brought before the House? If no attention was to be paid by the Prime Minister to the decisions the House came to, he thought the matter was becoming serious.

§ MR. SWIFT MACNEILL (Donegal, S.)
said the Prime Minister was not treating the House with the respect which was due to it. He did not think he would be acting properly himself if he were to refrain from saying in this House what he had 433 already said in the public prints. He accused the Prime Minister of gross personal disrespect and of malfeasance in his duty to the Sovereign. It was the old constitutional custom for the Prime Minister or his agent to write an autograph letter to the Sovereign every day, giving a full account of the proceedings in Parliament. This was the assertion of the Sovereign's right to be informed of all that went on in the House of Commons. The Ministry were the servants of the House as well as of the King. The old theory was that the King was present in Parliament, and that when he was not present himself he was represented by his accredited Ministers. The Ministers of the Crown were not present at the debate to-night, and they had absented themselves in the same way on other occasions lately. By that conduct they were not only insulting the House, but acting in an unfaithful and disrespectful manner to the Sovereign. They ought to know that the Sovereign in a supreme moment could dissolve this Parliament and trust to the people. Mr. Gladstone adhered to the practice of writing a daily letter to Queen Victoria, giving an account of the proceedings of the House; Mr. W. H. Smith when Leader of the House also pursued the practice. Mr. Gladstone observed this practice to the last, and when infirmity made him unable to attend the evening sittings of the House his letter to the Queen was finished by Sir William Harcourt. It was no secret that the great biography of Mr. Gladstone by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Montrose Burghs was largely based on the letters which were written to Queen Victoria. It was a practice which had been followed since the time of Grenville. Why had the present Prime Minister neglected this 434 constitutional usage? This was not merely a House to register the decrees of the Government. A measure proposed by a private Member had an equal right to be considered, and the distinction drawn by the Prime Minister between Government Bills and private Members' Bills was a fallacious distinction. The Prime Minister had run away. He had heard of a runaway horse and a runaway wife; but never before had he met with a runaway Prime Minister. He had known something of many Cabinets, but he had never known one so like Noah's Ark as the present Cabinet. It was full of interesting relatives. Noah's Ark was floated on a waste of water, the present Cabinet was floated on a waste of blood.

§ MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSE (Bristol, E.)
asked when it was proposed to take the Committee stage of the Army Annual Bill. If it was put down for Thursday would the Government be sure to proceed with it, so that hon. Members would not be brought down to the House to discus it and then find that it had been put off?

§ *THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY (Sir A. ACLAND-HOOD, Somersetshire, Wellington)
said that this was the first time he had heard complaint made of the postponement of the Committee stage of a Government Bill. As to how long this sort of thing was to go on, that depended very much on hon. Members opposite. They had enjoyed great success in the ballot, and if they used their success to put down fiscal Motions the Government would continue to do in the future what they had done in the past. He had been asked to inform the Prime 435 Minister of the Resolution that had been passed. He always reported to the Prime Minister what passed in the House either next morning or even on the same night. [An HON. MEMBER: He said you did not report the other day.] He did not communicate the exact terms of the Resolution, but he told the Prime Minister that the House had spent a most interesting and instructive evening. As to what the effect of these Resolutions would be, the Resolutions in favour of Home Rule and Welsh disestablishment passed by a former Parliament were not noticed by its successor, and he did not see why the Parliament which was to meet some years hence should lake any notice of the Resolutions passed by this Parliament.

§ MR. DALZIEL (Kirkcaldy Burghs)
said he wished to point out the grave charge which the right hon. Gentleman had made against the veracity of the Prime Minister. The right hon. Gentleman had said that the statement made in the House the other day by the Prime Minister that he was not aware of what had taken place in the House the previous evening was totally inaccurate.

§ *SIR A. ACLAND-HOOD
The right hon. Gentleman was not told the terms of the Resolution.

§ MR. DALZIEL
said he was sure the Patronage Secretary had no disposition to quibble over a detail. He accepted what the right hon. Gentleman said as to the Prime Minister not knowing the terms of the Resolution. Were they to understand that the right hon. Gentleman in reporting to the Prime Minister in the morning what had occurred on the previous night, did not state that an im- 436 portant Motion had been carried in regard to the fiscal question?

§ *SIR A. ACLAND-HOOD
The words I used were "an interesting and instructive evening."

§ MR. DALZIEL
asked whether the right hon. Gentleman conveyed the information that the debate dealt with fiscal matters. That was his point. He thought the right hon. Gentleman had now given them an insight into the way in which the business of the House was being conducted. He reported to the Prime Minister what had taken place, and the Prime Minister came down to the House and stated that he did not know what had taken place. He hoped the Patronage Secretary to the Treasury would in future go a little more into detail in reporting to the Prime Minister what had occurred in the House.

§ MR. T. P. O'CONNOR (Liverpool, Scotland)
said that there was a strange discrepancy between the statement of the right hon. Gentleman and that of the Prime Minister. Surely the right hon. Gentleman did not mean to say that he did not tell the Prime Minister the subject that was discussed when the House spent an interesting and instructive evening. The position was this. Having got information as to what occurred from the principal Government Whip, the Prime Minister, when asked a Question on the subject, professed to be entirely ignorant of what had taken place in the House. That was an unworthy position for the Prime Minister, it was a gross insult to the House, and it was a most unconstitutional proceeding.