§ SIR HARCOURT JOHNSTONEasked the hon. Gentleman the Member for Christchurch (Sir H. Drummond Wolff) and his hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Sir John Lubbock), Whether, seeing that Amend- 320 ments to the right hon. Gentleman's (Mr. Gladstone's) Resolutions had now been placed upon the Paper, and that as, according to the Forms of the House, no Amendment could be proposed after a decision on the Previous Question—whatever that decision might be—had been arrived at, it was their intention to persevere in the Motion of which they had given Notice to move the Previous Question?
§ SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFI gave my Notice of moving the Previous Question, Sir, because I thought that in the present state of Europe it would be wrong to embarrass Her Majesty's Government in their foreign policy, and that it was therefore undesirable that Parliament should even entertain such a question as that raised by the right hon. Member for Greenwich. I am still of that opinion; but, as I gave my Notice on national and not on Party grounds, I am indifferent whether the Previous Question is moved by the hon. Baronet the Member for Maidstone or myself. If, therefore, the hon. Baronet adheres to his intention, I will readily give way to him, so that the Motion may not appear to have a Party character. But if the hon. Baronet does not intend to adhere to his Notice, then I will move the Previous Question myself.
§ SIR JOHN LUBBOCKAs my hon. Friend appeals to me, I may be allowed to say that I am of opinion the Resolutions to be moved by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenwich cannot be satisfactorily met either by a distinct negative or by an affirmative, and it is therefore my intention to persevere with the Amendment of which I have given Notice. At the same time, if the Government should desire to support the Amendment of which Notice has been given by the noble Lord the Member for Haddington (Lord Elcho), or any other Amendment implying confidence in Her Majesty's Government, I should feel it impossible to stand in the way of the issue to be raised on such a question.
MR. GLADSTONESir, bearing in mind the various speeches and declarations which have been made from the other side of the House, and especially by the Leader of the House, in expressing the anxiety of the Government to have a declaration of policy stated from this side, I am justified, I think, in 321 asking Her Majesty's Government, whether it is their intention to use any influence they possess with the hon. Gentleman the Member for Christchurch for the purpose of enabling us in the face of the country to take issue on this question, or whether they are content that the vote should be taken on the Previous Question?
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERI think, Sir, that the question of the right hon. Gentleman is one of a very unusual character, and one to which it is hardly necessary the Government should give any answer. The Motion of my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich does not raise any direct issue of want of confidence in Her Majesty's Government; but it sets forth a series of propositions which, as I understand, my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch and the hon. Baronet the Member for Maidstone are of opinion ought not to be entertained by the House. In these circumstances, it is not the intention of Her Majesty's Government to interfere either with the hon. Baronet opposite or with my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch, as it is a matter of indifference to us who moves the Previous Question.