§
Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Amendment proposed to the First Resolution, as amended [20th February],
That, whenever the Committee of Supply appointed for the consideration of the ordinary Army, Navy, and Civil Service Estimates stands as the first Order of the Day on a Monday, Mr. Speaker shall leave the Chair without putting any question.
§
And which Amendment was,
After the word "Monday," to insert the words "provided there he not on the Paper any Amendment relevant to the class of Estimates about to be discussed."—(Mr. Anderson.)
§ Question again proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
§ Debate resumed.
MR. O'CONNOR POWERHon. Members who have discussed these 1659 Resolutions at some length have incurred an amount of censure which it seems to me is entirely undeserved. The House of Commons would be unworthy of its name, and it would be false to its character as the Representative Assembly of the people, if it did not offer a determined resistance to these despotic and reactionary Resolutions. The more these Resolutions are considered, the more objectionable they appear to independent Members on both sides of the House. We were told at first that the Resolutions had nothing to do with, obstruction; but the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate), who loves to persecute opinion, religious or political, when it differs from his own, declared the real motive of these restrictive proposals. By the first Resolution the Chancellor of the Exchequer would push us at once into Committee when Supply is down; and when he gets us into Committee, without any previous discussion, he will then still further restrict our freedom of debate; and yet we are told, in the blandest possible manner, that all this will facilitate the discussion of the Estimates. If you want to facilitate the discussion of the Estimates, why do you propose, in the second Resolution, to gag Members in Committee, to limit their freedom of speech, and restrict their right of taking divisions? While many plausible excuses are put forward for these proposed alterations in the Rules, the principal argument urged in their favour is that they will facilitate the despatch of Public Business. Now, this is the one important point which the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and those who have spoken on his side of the question, have, I venture to say, entirely failed to prove. The hon. Member for North Warwickshire says the time has come when something must be done to maintain the dignity of Parliament. I quite agree with him; but when he suggests that the House of Commons shall put on a straight jacket and wear a strong chain, held in the hands of the Executive, in order to look dignified and respectable, I fail to appreciate the force of his reasoning. If the House were capable of that, it would be capable of sacrificing at once both its character and dignity; and no one ought to be surprised, therefore, at the opposition which the House has given to these very ob- 1660 noxious Resolutions. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sandwich (Mr. Knatchbull-Hugessen) has distinguished himself among the champions of Parliamentary coercion on this side of the House; and he asked us the other night to consider what was the complaint of the country against the House, and he told us that it was that the House was unequal to its work, and unable to get through the legislation urgently demanded. The country has certainly a right to complain of the deadlock in legislation; but I venture to contend that the remedy which has found favour with the right hon. Gentleman will aggravate the disease instead of removing it. If you stifle the expression of popular wants in the House of Commons, where shall they find utterance? You may say these Resolutions do not go so far as that. But, remember, they lead the way in that direction, and the experience of all history shows that if encroachments of this kind are not sternly resisted at the outset, they will be repeated again and again, and they will find you on each successive occasion less able to repel them, until finally you are obliged to succumb without raising a murmur of opposition. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Chester (Mr. Dodson), who has been referred to as a high authority on the Business of Parliament, told us he had endeavoured to induce the House to part with some of its work. I regret very much that his efforts in that direction wore not successful. He was then on the right track, and pursuing a more statesmanlike course than he is now pursuing in lending his support, however cautiously, to the proposals of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. There are only two rational courses, by either of which the difficulties of the House can be removed. You must either so enlarge the powers of local government as to give Home Rule to Ireland for Irish affairs, Home Rule to Scotland for Scottish affairs, and Home Rule to England for English affairs, while at the same time maintaining the Imperial Parliament in all its strength and integrity for carrying on the government of the Empire, and for the transaction of all Imperial affairs; or, taking the Representatives of the three nationalities as they are in this House, you must assign to each national section respectively the legisla- 1661 tion affecting the country which each represents. With the continued accumulation of work you must introduce the principle of the division of labour, or get rid of such portions of the work as you are unable to perform. The latter is by far the more sensible course to adopt; and I assert, emphatically, that this House is utterly incompetent to legislate satisfactorily for the internal wants of the three Kingdoms, besides grappling with the multitude of affairs comprehended in the management of a vast and widely-extended Empire. One day the House is summoned to discuss a question of high Imperial interest, on another to debate the merits of a Turnpike Bill—or, as somebody said a few days ago, a road across Hyde Park; but no one has undertaken to show why Parliament should stoop to questions of this description. What should I, as an Irish Member, know about the merits of the Scotch Roads and Bridges Bill, and why should I be obliged to master its details to the possible neglect of matters in which my constituents take a deeper interest? Why, on the other hand, should Englishmen and Scotchmen insist on having a voice in deciding the merits of Irish Water Bills, Gas Bills, and Railway Bills? These are plain questions and urgent questions which the Select Committee on Public Business seems to have entirely ignored; but they are important questions which will one day force themselves on the attention of statesmen, and demand recognition and settlement. You have sanctioned a policy which is extending the Empire every day and adding to your tremendous responsibilities. But domestic affairs are not less pressing on that account. They are constantly growing with the growth of modern civilization. There is now a school in every village, and the land is dotted with libraries and reading-rooms, like oases in the desert, where the people resort to drink of the fountain of knowledge. There is education, and information, and enlightenment everywhere, accompanied by discussion; and the consequence is that a thousand new problems of social, industrial, and political interest spring up every year which demand the consideration of the highest statesmanship. Looking at the condition of Germany and other countries, it must come home to the mind of every thoughtful 1662 man that some of the questions of the day, to which I allude, are questions which it would be dangerous to ignore. The transformation which the work of Parliament has undergone has been well described by my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-on-Tyne (Mr. J. Cowen), and the evils of which he complains arise from the tendency to centralization, which has been growing stronger and stronger every year, and which the present Executive has forced to a point which is simply intolerable. It flatters the vanity of the House to assure it that when local institutions are brought under the control of the Government they will be under the control of Parliament also; and that, as the people control the House of Commons, they will always rule, no matter who may govern Statements of this kind were put forward in support of the Prisons Bill; but nothing could be more delusive. The prisons wore handed over to the Government. But does any unofficial Member of this House imagine that any word or act of his will influence prison discipline or prison management? No; it was the officials of the Home Office, and not the Members of this House, who obtained control of the prisons when you centralized the prison system. They will take care to capture each now Homo Secretary, and bind him hand-and-foot with the red tape of their system; and the same thing happens in each of the other Departments. The Minister presiding over each is in the hands of his own officials. By-and-bye, when these evils shall accumulate beyond endurance, the people will cry out, not against the tyranny of the Government or the tyranny of Parliament, but against the tyranny of confederated officials, against the tyranny of an odious bureaucracy, which is the most hateful tyranny of all. Surely it is time to make a stand against centralization, if local liberty and local power are not to be entirely surrendered. The necessity of doing something to facilitate Public Business appears to be a sufficient argument with some hon. Gentlemen in favour of these Resolutions; but if you are to go on tightening your Rules, and increasing your Business, the logical conclusion of your action will be a despotism which will dispense with Constitutional liberty and Parliamentary institutions. It will certainly be something like the irony of fate, or 1663 poetical vengeance, if this House, which has often used its power to destroy the liberty of many nations, should, as a necessity of its policy, end by destroying its own. It is not, perhaps, from an Irish Representative whose country has felt the tyranny of your sway that you should receive warning of such a possible catastrophe; and I will conclude by declaring that, as a friend of freedom of speech and popular rights, I, for one, will consent to no part of the coercion code which the Minister has attempted to fasten upon the House.
§ MR. BERESFORD HOPEbelieved that the House was generally of opinion that they should arrive at some compromise on this question, and proceed to that very interesting and important topic—the future of the British Army. When his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in a friendly and generous spirit, accepted the compromise of his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for West Sussex (Sir Walter B. Barttelot), he (Mr. Beresford Hope) ventured to point out reasons why he thought it was not sufficient. There were certain evils which were inherent in it which were not so conspicuous in the proposition of 1876. Under the Rule of 1872 there would be much more temptation than under that of 1876 to heap the Notice Papers on first Supply nights with Motions which might be raised so as to prevent the Minister in charge of the Estimates from making his Statement till after the dinner-hour, when the House was in a state of exhausted collapse. In contrast to this, the expedient which the Chancellor of the Exchequer suggested in examining Mr. Speaker before the Committee, and which Mr. Speaker in his evidence unmistakably supported, and of which the Chairman of Committees also most strongly approved, was that the Minister in charge of the Estimates should make his Statement on the Motion that the Speaker should leave the Chair. He would make his Statement in face of the Amendments on the Paper, and could therefore traverse and answer a great many of them by anticipation. If that were done, and the Resolution of 1876 adopted, the Government would gain considerable advantage, and, at the same time, no hon. Members would be stopped from the right of stating a grievance before Supply. The rationale of the 1664 present system was that the House being already in Committee of Supply the Minister stated the reasons of the Vote for which he asked. The rationale of the one which he proposed was that the Minister gave his reasons for going into a Committee of Supply by a general sketch of what would be asked for when that Committee was set up. If, therefore, his right hon. Friend would take the framework of the Resolution of 1876, modified by that other reform which he himself originally suggested, of allowing the Minister to make his Statement on the Motion that the Speaker should leave the Chair, he believed that it would meet the general wish of the House.
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he was anxious to agree to a compromise in order to cut short the protracted discussion, and with that view he had already accepted certain Amendments to his Resolution; and he thought that the compromise he had so offered was quite sufficient. He was not, therefore, prepared to accept the additional Amendments suggested. He could only repeat now what he had said on one or two previous occasions. They had discussed the matter very fully, and as far as the technical question of the alteration of the Rules was concerned the argument had been exhausted. He admitted, of course, that the larger and wider questions raised by the hon. Member for Mayo (Mr. O'Connor Power) would require, and indeed they deserved, larger and fuller examination; but they did not arise upon this technical question, and the House would hardly think it convenient to go into them. He hoped, therefore, the hon. Member would not think him discourteous in declining to follow him. The present Resolution dealt with the question of the best way of so arranging the details of the Orders as to give the best facilities for pursuing Business with decent rapidity, and, at the same time, without unduly fettering the rights and liberties of the House. Of course, hon. Members would understand that it was impossible to have any Rules that would not in some way fetter the liberty which was the natural privilege of every man in this country. Even the Rule that they must not speak twice on the same subject might be said to fetter the liberty of every man to speak when he liked. The question before the 1665 House had been carefully considered, not only in this debate and in the Committee which sat last year, but also in former years. On the whole, he thought the Resolution which he had proposed, with the Amendments which he had already accepted, and which were very considerable, would be a fair and reasonable arrangement and one which they might work upon. It was pretty much the arrangement that was adopted in 1872 and 1873; and while carrying out the proposal of his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for West Sussex (Sir Walter W. Barttelot), and the hon. and learned Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Serjeant Simon), it would not infringe the liberty of anyone. What he hoped was that now, after so much discussion, the House would be allowed to come to a conclusion. They would first divide on the Amendment of the hon. Member for Glasgow, and if he was successful, the Rule would be adopted in that form. If he failed, then he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) was prepared to adopt either the Amendment which stood in the name of the hon. and gallant Member for West Sussex or that of the hon. and learned Member for Dewsbury. The Business on the Paper was important and interesting, and there would be a good deal of disappointment felt if the Army Estimates were to be put off. His proposal was that if they should come to a vote at an early hour on the first Resolution, he would not ask the House to take the other Resolutions into consideration at present; but they might stand over for another time.
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, he was sorry that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had refused to surrender the point, and would remind him that if he wished to proceed to the consideration of the Army Estimates at once, the only way of succeeding in his desire was to accept the suggestion of a further compromise. He (Sir Charles W. Dilke) would move to add the words "or Notice" to the Amendment of his hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow (Mr. Anderson), in order that questions requiring some explanation might be put and debated before Supply.
§ Amendment proposed to the said proposed Amendment, to insert, after the 1666 word "Amendment, "the words "or Notice."—(Sir Charles W, Dilke.)
§ Question proposed, "That the words 'or Notice 'be there inserted."
§ MR. ANDERSONsaid, he willingly accepted the addition proposed by his hon. Friend. He was also sorry the Chancellor of the Exchequer was not able to accept his Amendment, because the right hon. Gentleman put himself in the peculiar position of going back to the Liberal Resolutions of 1872, instead of to his own in 1876. It was quite clear, if the 1872 Rule were adopted, irrelevant Notices would be piled up on Monday nights, and that was exactly what the House wished to avoid.
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONthought it would be more convenient to take the sense of the House on the Amendment of the hon. Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Beresford Hope). He hoped, therefore, the hon. Member for Glasgow would withdraw his Amendment.
§ MR. MITCHELL HENRYthought the Government must have had some other object in view when they refused the reasonable compromise which had been offered. They were all equally interested with the Government in the proper conduct of the Public Business; but they could not be silenced by the statements of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, which were not arguments; and he protested against the sic volo sic jubeo style in which the right hon. Gentleman was treating the House.
§ MR. ANDERSONsaid, he would withdraw his Amendment in deference to the appeal of the noble Lord (the Marquess of Hartington). The sense of the House would be taken distinctly on the Amendment of the hon. Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Beresford Hope), which practically was the same as his own.
§ Amendment to the proposed Amendment, and Original Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKE, in moving, as an Amendment, to insert after the word "shall," the words "except on first going into Committee on the ordinary Army, Navy, or Civil Service Estimates respectively," said, that ifs object was to allow Amendments, whether relevant or not to the Estimates, to 1667 be brought forward on the first night that they were placed on the Paper. In consequence of the appeal made on a former evening by the noble Marquess the Leader of the Opposition, he would not move it, unless the House wished it. At present he asked leave to withdraw it. ["No, no!"]
§
Amendment proposed,
After the word "shall," in line 3, of the First Resolution, to insert the words "except on first going into Committee on the ordinary Army, Navy, or Civil Service Estimates respectively."—(Sir Charles W. Dilke.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
§ MR. PARNELLsaid, he must really appeal to the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer as to whether it was his determination to maintain the attitude of adhering to the Rule of 1872 in preference to that of 1876? He thought the right hon. Gentleman might save a great deal of time, and might enable the House to proceed to a consideration of the Army Estimates, if, in deference to what was undoubtedly the feeling of a considerable section of the Opposition, he agreed to accept the principle of the latter Rule. The principle of the Rule of 1876 had the sanction which experience always gave; but, according to the evidence given before the Select Committee, the Rule of 1872 had been tried and found wanting. It was proposed by the Liberal Government of the day, and was strenuously resisted by the whole of the then Conservative Opposition (including the present Leader of the House), with the single exception of the present Secretary to the Treasury (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson), who seemed to have a singular prescience that the Rule would not work, and who voted in favour of inquiry and examination into the whole question, before the House ventured to adopt so startling an alteration. He (Mr. Parnell) fully admitted that this was a two-edged weapon, and that it cut both ways. Still, he thought he might ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it was really worth his while to perpetuate a struggle of this kind? No doubt, the right hon. Gentleman might have entered into a very accurate mathematical calculation as to the amount of time which he might save by persisting in his present course of action. He 1668 might have seen that there was a prospect, if but a bare one, of getting his first Resolution carried that evening; and he might have thought that with that Resolution adopted, and becoming a Sessional Order of the House, he might by that means gain sufficient time during the rest of the Session to make up for the loss of one evening. But he (Mr. Parnell) would ask the House whether that was either a sensible or a statesmanlike view for a Government to take who were intrusted with such great responsibilities, and that, too, in connection with a proposal which cut directly at the root of a Constitutional principle? No doubt, the Members of the Government might say to themselves—"Our position is very powerful. We may occupy our seats here for years to come. There is no sign of cohesion in the Opposition, and there is no prospect of our rivals being in power." But, after all, things did sometimes alter. Sudden changes did occur. Great Powers had fallen in a moment. Napoleon III. appeared to have an assured maintenance of his position for years to come; but he fell suddenly, and although he (Mr. Parnell) did not suppose that the Zulu King would be able to bring about a catastrophe of a similar description, which would compel the Chancellor of the Exchequer to fly from his capital, no one knew what foreign complications might arise, or when the right hon. Gentleman might have to vacate his present high position. The Chancellor of the Exchequer could not hope to make the Rule of 1872 a Standing Order that evening; and he (Mr. Parnell) must really ask him whether it was worth his while to keep alive an element of contention of this description, and to face a renewal of the difficulties which had already risen in the House during the last eight or nine days? He did not wish it to be said that by any conduct on his part the privileges of the English Parliament were being diminished. The House of Commons had a great history, and although Irish Members might think their country had been injured by the necessity of having to seek justice in an English Legislature, they could not look back upon that history without feelings of some reverence for it, and for the exertions of the men who had raised the House to the position which it now occupied. But what were the 1669 Government now proposing to do? They were going to drive a nail into the work of their ancestors—men who won their liberties and who fought for them. It remained for the despised Irish Members to insist upon preserving the rights and liberties of the House. No equivalent would be gained by the Government for the loss which would be sustained in other directions were their proposal to be accepted.
§ MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell) had appealed to him (Mr. Newdegate) as one who had had, for a long time, the honour of a seat in the House. The hon. Gentleman had spoken in support of the principle of the Rule of 1876; but it was to be hoped he would come to see, by degrees, that it would be neither for the advantage of the House, nor of the country, that the course which he recommended should be followed. The Resolution of 1872 was certainly to be preferred to that of 1876; or, rather, the substance of the one was to be preferred to the substance of the other. The hon. Member for Meath had laid great stress upon the ancient privileges of the House. Those privileges had been asserted quite as much by the forbearance of hon. Gentlemen as by their exacting the full extent of their rights; and what he (Mr. Newdegate) had seen convinced him that, under the Resolution of 1872, the practical Business of the House had been much more smoothly conducted than under the Resolution of 1876. If hon. Members would but recall what took place between those years—1872 and 1876—and compare the course of Business during the Sessions between those dates with what had occurred since 1876, they, he thought, must come to the conclusion that the House had been able to perform its duties better in every sense, between 1872 and 1876, than it had been able to do since.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ MR. BERESFORD HOPEsaid, he now desired to move the Amendment which stood in his name on the Paper. The proposal which he submitted to the House was in the following terms:—
To add at the end of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's first Resolution, 'except an Amendment relative to the Class of Estimates which has been set down for consideration on that day be moved, in which case Mr. Speaker shall be 1670 bound to propose the question in respect of such Amendment: Provided always, That the Member of the Government who proposes to move the Estimates upon that day may make his statement with Mr. Speaker in the Chair.'No doubt, the first portion of his Amendment had been already discussed; but the second part of it imported, as he thought, a very beneficial colouring into the whole matter. He had already touched on the question, and he was rather disappointed that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had taken no notice of what he had been urging. The object of that second portion was to enable a Minister, charged with the duty of giving a Statement to the House as to certain Estimates, to make that Statement while the Speaker was in the Chair. He had been very much disappointed to find that, in the remarks which were made a short time previously by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, his right hon. Friend entirely passed over the appeal which he had made to him in reference to this subject; and he must again endeavour to impress its importance upon the House and upon the Government. The proposal which he now made not only rested upon the recommendation of very high authorities, but it would be attended with obvious advantages in facilitating that despatch of Business, which it was the object of the Resolutions of the Government to promote. It would enable a Minister to rise and make his Statement about 5 o'clock in the afternoon, when the House was full, when the Minister himself was fresh, and when the Statement would be delivered in time for post and telegraph. By adopting the proposal which he urged upon the attention of the Government, the Chancellor of the Exchequer would get rid of the scandal of a hungry Minister making an important speech in an almost empty House at 9 or 10 o'clock; and that, in his opinion, ought to more than compensate the Government for anything they might give up by agreeing to accept his proposal. Hon. Members might put the matter to the most practical test by considering what would have been their own experience that very night if the House were doing and not talking of Business, and if his proposal had been in operation. Long before the hour on which he himself was at that time speaking the Minister for War would have been able to make his 1671 Statement, instead of having, either under the old Rule, or that of 1872—it being a Monday and the first night of the Army Estimates—to wait till a series of Amendments had been disposed of, and either get up at some late hour, or be altogether thrown over for the night. He appealed to the right hon. Gentleman who led their deliberations to give peace and contentment to the House by agreeing to a proposition which would not only facilitate the despatch of Business, but afford an additional privilege to Ministers themselves.
§
Amendment proposed,
At the end of the First Resolution, to add the words "except an Amendment relative to the Class of Estimates which has been set down for consideration on that day he moved, in which case Mr. Speaker shall be bound to propose the question in respect of such Amendment: Provided always, That the Member of the Government who proposes to move the Estimates upon that day may make his statement with Mr. Speaker in the Chair."—(Mr. Beresford Hope.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he was not insensible to the value of the Proviso which his hon. Friend who had just spoken (Mr. Beresford Hope) proposed to attach to his Amendment. No doubt, on the first occasion of bringing forward the Army and Navy Estimates, that Proviso would be of great convenience, and would facilitate the Business of the House. That, however, was not the point which they had now to consider. The question which had been raised, and with which the House had to deal, was as to how they were to conduct the Business during the whole of the Session upon questions of Supply. According to the proposal of his hon. Friend, all through the Session, whenever Supply was put down, it would be competent for hon. Members to bring forward Motions relative to the class of Estimates set down for consideration; but it was obviously very difficult to say—and this was one of the great objections to the working of the Rule of 1876—what Amendments were or were not relative to the class of Estimates so set down. By a little ingenuity a very large number of Amendments might be brought within that term—such, for instance, as the conditions under which Kew Gardens should be open to the public. Now, what he 1672 desired was to secure certainty in the discussion of the Estimates, so that the time of the House should not be wasted; and he hoped, therefore, the House would at once come to a division, and not go again over the arguments which had been so repeatedly urged.
§ MR. SYNANsaid, he could not understand on what possible ground the Chancellor of the Exchequer could object to the use of the word "relative" in the proposal of the hon. Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Beresford Hope), as that word occurred in all the Amendments to the Resolution, including the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Member for West Sussex (Sir Walter B. Barttelot), which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had accepted. Surety, either the Speaker or the Chairman of Committees would be competent to decide such a point, when they were asked to decide the question as to whether a particular Motion was in Order. The effect of adopting the Resolution of the Government would be to curtail and narrow the rights and privileges of hon. Members without facilitating the despatch of the Business of the House. The Amendment of the hon. Member for the University of Cambridge facilitated the Business of the House without encroaching on those rights, and he therefore supported it.
§ MR. MITCHELL HENRYsaid, he could not see that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had yet brought forward any sound argument in favour of the proposition which he had submitted to the House. Hon. Members must retain and not lose the rights and privileges they at present possessed.
MR. PAGETsuggested that if the hon. Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Beresford Hope) would withdraw his Proviso, which seemed to him (Mr. Paget) to rest on an entirely different ground to the main body of the Amendment, it would be easier for the House to come to a clear understanding on the matter. The Amendment would then become practically the same as that of the hon. and gallant Member for West Sussex (Sir Walter B. Barttelot); and it would, in that case, better recommend itself to the adoption of the House.
§ MR. BERESFORD HOPEsaid, he could not consent to do so, as the with- 1673 drawal of the Proviso would spoil the symmetry of the system embodied in his Amendment.
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, he entirely agreed with the Chancellor of the Exchequer that this not very large question had been debated as much as it could be. He therefore should not have said anything more on the subject except for the statement made by the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnoll), who had said that he (the Marquess of Hartington) had shown a decided preference for the Rule of 1876 over that of 1872. He did not think that anyone had shown any preference of that kind except his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Oxford (Sir William Harcourt). The importance of the difference between them had been greatly exaggerated; but if he had a preference for either of them, it was for the Resolution of 1872, under the working of which no hon. Member had thought himself injured by being shut out or excluded from bringing any question to which he attached any importance under the consideration of the House. The Rule of 1872 was not, as the hon. Member for Meath had stated, abandoned because it was not found to work well. It worked, so far as he knew, perfectly well, and without producing any complaint; but it was abandoned by the Government during the first Session of their existence, because the state of Business was such that they did not feel the necessity for its continuance which they now felt. The suggestion which he made the other night, although not accepted in its entirety by the Government, still, he thought, pointed to a remedy in this matter. If the Government refused to discuss a point in dispute on the Estimates, a Member had another opportunity of bringing forward the subject when the Resolutions relating to the Estimates were reported to the House. As regarded Kew Gardens, the hon. Member for Galway need not be under any alarm, as he would have a full opportunity of raising the question upon the Motion for the payment of the salary of the officers. He should certainly support the Rule of 1872 as proposed by the Government.
§ MR. PARNELL, in apology, said, he must certainly have made a mistake if he had said that the noble Lord (the 1674 Marquess of Hartington) had ever shown any decided preference for the Rule of 1876 as compared with that of 1872; because the noble Lord had never shown any decided preference for anything as compared with another.
§ Question put.
§ The House divided:—Ayes 79; Noes 191:Majority 112. (Div. List, No. 20.)
§ MR. SHAW LEFEVRE, who had an Amendment upon the Paper, to add the words—
Unless on going into Committee an Amendment be moved relevant to the Votes to be considered on that day,said, after the vote just given by the House, he should not move it.
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, in that case, he would do so, with the addition of the words "or Question asked "after the word "moved," in order to draw attention to a subject which had not yet been sufficiently discussed. If the Resolution was passed as it now stood, a Member would have no opportunity of calling attention to a subject, or of asking a question on any matter, however relevant it might be, unless he moved a definite Resolution.
§
Amendment proposed,
At the end of the First Resolution, to add the words "unless on going into Committee an Amendment be moved or Question asked relevant to the Votes to be considered on that day."—(Sir Charles W. Dilke.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
§ MR. NEWDEGATEhoped the House would very gravely pause before it adopted the Amendment. One of the great difficulties at the present time was that hon. Members called attention to subjects without giving the body of the House any opportunity of expressing their opinion thereon. Such a vast enlargement of the privilege of asking Questions had taken place of late years, that he thought the House ought to be careful before it granted any further enlargement, or how it permitted a Member to draw attention to a subject, and set on foot a discussion which might last the whole evening, without the House having an opportunity of expressing its opinion thereon.
MR. O'CONNOR POWERthought the hon. Member for North Warwick- 1675 shire (Mr. Newdegate) might just as well say that no Questions should be asked at half-past 4 o'clock; that was the logical conclusion of his argument.
§ MR. RYLANDSI am rather surprised that the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate) should raise an objection to the proposal of the hon. Baronet, because it is in accordance with the course hitherto followed, and which has been found of great convenience, by giving an opportunity for discussion on a Question being put involving a certain amount of argument. I am quite sure, if the hon. Member (Mr. Newdegate) will recall his own experience, he will remember that, convenience has arisen from discussions of that character. We have an instance at hand at the present moment on the Motion for going into Committee of Supply this evening. The hon. Member for Chelsea (Sir Charles W. Dilke) has given Notice that he will call attention to the subject of the occupation of Cyprus, and ask certain Questions. I happen to know that my hon. Friend does not intend to bring this subject on to-night; but I mention it, as it is clearly one of the kind of Questions which, with great propriety, might be brought forward on going into Committee of Supply; and the hon. Baronet might put to the Government Questions on a matter of great public interest, coupled with certain statements, which he would not be enabled to make at the Question time at half-past 4 o'clock. But I wish, Mr. Speaker, to appeal to you in this matter, on which I am inclined to hold an opinion contrary to that of the hon. Member for Chelsea. If a Notice of this kind had been put down on the Paper, a Notice relevant to the class of Estimates, would it be competent under the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Baronet (Sir Walter B. Barttelot), for the hon. Member for Chelsea to raise the question without absolutely putting his Notice in the form of an Amendment? Perhaps, Sir, if you would give an opinion on this point, it might remove the necessity of altering the words of the Resolution as now proposed, and I do think that such a Notice should be permitted under the Standing Order of the House.
§ MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, he could not see how the Government could refuse to accede to the principle of the proposal now made.
§ MR. SPEAKER, in reply to the question of the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands), said, that in the event of the House passing the Resolution before it, with the addition of the Amendment about to be moved by the hon. and gallant Baronet the Member for West Sussex (Sir Walter B. Barttelot), if an Amendment relevant to the class of Votes proposed to be taken were moved and negatived, it would not be competent for the House to divide on any other Amendment, even though it were relevant; but the subject-matter of such Amendment might be discussed. If on the Motion to go into Committee, an hon. Member rose in his place, even though he had no Amendment on the Notice Paper, it would be his (Mr. Speaker's) duty to assume that the hon. Member intended to conclude with a Motion, or to address himself to the Question before the House; and therefore he could not prevent him from proceeding to address the House.
§ MR. RITCHIEsaid, that the Amendment merely put into a definite form that which was already the practice of the House.
§ MR. DODSONthought the Amendment was not necessary, and they were only wasting their time by beating in the air.
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, he should not, after the explanation which had been given, put the House to the trouble of a division.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§
SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOT moved the insertion of the following words:—
Unless an Amendment be moved relating to the Class of Estimates proposed to be taken in Supply on first going into Committee on the Army, Navy, and Civil Services respectively.
§
Amendment proposed,
At the end of the First Resolution, to add the words "unless an Amendment be moved relating to the Class of Estimates proposed to be taken in Supply on first going into Committee on the Army, Navy, and Civil Services respectively."—(Sir Walter B. Barttelot.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKE moved to amend the proposed Amendment by inserting the words "or Question raised "after the word "moved." That would 1677 raise the question whether an hon. Member who merely wished to call attention to a relevant subject without Motion or Amendment would be at liberty to do so.
§ Amendment proposed to the said proposed Amendment, after the word "moved," to insert the words "or Question raised."—(Sir Charles W. Dilke.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, it was intended that an hon. Member should be at liberty to do so. In that view, the Amendment of the hon. Baronet was perfectly reasonable, and he would agree to it.
§ Question put, and agreed to.
§
Question again proposed,
That the words 'unless an Amendment be moved or Question raised relating to the Class of Estimates proposed to be taken in Supply on first going into Committee on the Army, Navy, and Civil Services respectively,' be there added.
§ MR. WHITWELL moved the omission of the words "Class of," so as not to confine the discussion to any one class of Estimates.
§ Amendment proposed, to leave out the words "Class of."—(Mr. Whitwell.)
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, the proposed Amendment was immaterial, and he would agree to it.
§ Question, "That the words 'Class of stand part of the proposed Amendment," put, and negatived.
§
Question again proposed,
That the words, 'unless an Amendment be moved or Question raised relating to the Estimates proposed to be taken in Supply on first going into Committee on the Army, Navy, and Civil Services respectively,' be there added.
§ MR. MITCHELL HENRYproposed further to amend the proposed Amendment by the substitution for the words "the Civil Service Estimates" of the words "the several Classes of the Civil Service Estimates." Many of those classes differed widely from each other, and if the Amendment were not agreed to, the Irish Members would be debarred the opportunity of discussing questions in which they were much interested. Hon. Members would then be driven to 1678 use every possible privilege they still retained, and, instead of Business being advanced, it would be very much retarded.
§ MR. DILLWYNseconded the Amendment.
§
Amendment proposed,
After the words "Navy and," to insert the words" the several Classes of the."—(Mr. Mitchell Henry.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
§ MR. DODSONthought a reference to the Rule of 1872 would simplify the matter. The words used in that Rule were, "the several divisions of the Estimates."
§ MR. BIGGAR, in supporting the Amendment, remarked that the ostensible cause of these new Rules was the obstruction of a small number of Irish Members. He denied that there had been any obstruction, except in the case of the South African Bill.
§ MR. BERESFORD HOPEsaid, that the Amendment would really shorten the Monday Business, and he would counsel the Chancellor of the Exchequer to accept it. If the Civil Service Estimates were broken up into classes, he supposed the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not take more than one class each night, while the Minister representing that class would offer his explanation. Such a classification, in his opinion, was quite necessary.
§ MR. ANDERSONcontended that the Amendment was a reasonable one, and hoped the Government would not oppose it, as it would give an opportunity to the House to discuss more than one question relating to the Civil Service Estimates on one day, which was no more than right, seeing there were at least seven branches as dissimilar from each other as from the Army or Navy.
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that the condition sought to be attached to the Resolution would do very much away with the advantage of the Rule. He thought quite enough was given, considering the many opportunities there would be for discussing any question that might arise, if one day were set apart for the discussion of any of the questions affecting the Civil Service Estimates. If the Estimates were sub-divided into classes, the time 1679 of the House would be really frittered away, without any corresponding advantage. He did not think it was proposed to carry the Amendment so far as was suggested.
§ MR. SHAW LEFEVREthought that what Government lost in one way it would gain in another; because on going into, say, the Education Votes, it would be impossible to raise any question on Public Parks.
§ SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONventured to think that if the House at any time desired to have further information of the Minister in charge of the Estimates, it would be able to obtain it; that a general discussion could be raised upon any part of the Estimates; and that the Secretary to the Treasury would not be able to force them on. That information could be obtained if the House passed the Resolution as agreed to by the Government. Though the Resolution were passed, it would not necessarily follow that Monday would be the only day on which Estimates would be taken. Hon. Members might, therefore, rely on having ample opportunities for the discussion of the Estimates. It was never contemplated that there should be such a sub-division of Estimates as was now suggested. The Rule was introduced in 1876 by the noble Lord at the head of the Government in the form in which it had worked well in 1872–3; and although it was amended, that did not imply any admission that it had not worked satisfactorily.
§ MR. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSENsaid, the Amendment would raise a practical difficulty to reporting Progress in the middle, say, of Class 1, and on a subsequent night finishing that class and proceeding with, say, Classes 2 and 3; because Class 1 would not be entered upon then for the first time, so that no Amendment could be moved on going again into Committee upon it, whilst Classes 2 and 3, though they might have been down on the Paper the first night, would not actually have been begun. This alteration would render it necessary, therefore, to take only one class each night, and would be productive of great inconvenience. As the Rule only applied to one night, and the Government had made several concessions, they might pass the Resolution as it stood.
§ MR. O'SHAUGHNESSYsaid, it was admitted there should be an opportunity 1680 of discussing each division of the Estimates before going into Committee; the different classes of the Civil Service Estimates were as important as the Army or the Navy Estimates; and it was the business of the Ministers to devise the words by which the necessary latitude should be assured and not to leave hon. Members at the mercy of any particular Minister who might bring on the Estimates. If the Government did not accept the Amendment, the variety of topics that would have to be mooted on going into Committee on any division of the Estimates would render it impossible that any abuse, however serious, could secure sufficient attention from the House and the Government. They ought to put a limit to the concessions now being made to the Government.
§ SIR PATRICK O'BRIENsaid, the alternative to the Amendment proposed would be Amendments in Committee of Supply; but that would not be a satisfactory mode of discussing some grievances.
§ MR. PARNELLsaid, the Government apparently desired to drive independent Members to obstruction; he did not mean now, but in the future course of Business, for as such it would be regarded to impede the Report of Supply at the time it was often brought on. That stage was often taken at such an hour that any discussion on the Estimates became impossible. This Rule was, therefore, an incentive to the adoption of methods of Parliamentary warfare which ought to be seldom resorted to. It was impossible to conclude that the Rule adopted in 1872 would work well now, because since 1872 the Civil Service Estimates had very much increased. The Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Gal way was, therefore, one that raised a most important question.
§ MR. ERRINGTONthought the major portion of the arguments which had been adduced were decidedly in favour of the proposal of the hon. Member for Gal-way (Mr. Mitchell Henry). He (Mr. Errington) thought, however, that the Government might consent to a compromise. Several of the classes of Estimates were, of course, more important than others, and he would suggest that some of the least important should be grouped together. For instance, the Classes numbered 1 and 2 might be grouped; Class 3, 1681 or the Administration of Justice, would, of course, deserve a night to itself; Class 4, Education, would also deserve a night; and he proposed that Classes 5, 6, and 7 should be taken together, and one night devoted to them; so that instead of seven nights being required for the Civil Service Estimates, they would need only four. That was a less concession than hon. Members asked for, but one worthy of the consideration of the Government.
§ MR. O'DONNELLsaid, the fact that the Government would not accept the Amendment would impose upon independent Members the obligation of taking steps to counteract what the Government wished to impose, which was nothing more than an attempt to stop the exposition of grievances in respect to the Civil Service Estimates; and he really thought there could not be a scheme bettor calculated to bring the authority of this House into contempt, and better calculated to shake the confidence of the nation, than the scheme which the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had presented to them. When hon. Members took an undue advantage of a liberal and generous regulation of debates, they could only do so at the imminent risk and at the practical certainty of finding themselves condemned not only by the Government whom they disturbed, but by the country at large. On the other hand, when Members, in obedience to a public duty, and in recognition of the claims of men who came to them and asked that their grievances should be exposed in Parliament, could only obtain a hearing by adopting some Parliamentary chicane, and getting round and about the devices of Government, they would not be condemned by the country at large for obstruction, but they would be applauded. Under even a generous regulation, Members had sometimes to push the liberty of discussion to its utmost limits, and Members had been found to do that with reasonable ground, and an irritated Government did not dare to take measures to punish their objectionable action. Under these circumstances, he asked the Government to consider, would Members of similar resolution hesitate for one single moment to challenge the displeasure of the Government when they had such a good excuse and ground for setting at naught the threats 1682 of Government penalties as these Resolutions practically set forth? It was perfectly true, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer had said, that if they looked at the Rules and Orders of the House generally, the proposed restrictions of the Government would not in the slightest degree interfere with the liberty of independent Members, if such Members were only resolute in maintaining their liberties. He meant to say that if the Government refused to allow independent Members a fair opportunity of expressing their grievances, those Members certainly, by making use of the forms of the House, could contrive a means and find an opportunity to bring their grievances forward, and irregular in reality though they might be, nevertheless their conduct would be regular in outward seeming, and would be according to Parliamentary form. What the Government said in effect to the independent Members was that they did not propose to interfere with their liberties, because they knew that would be useless on their part; yet by way of improving the conduct of debates in that House, they intended to force them to give up bringing forward their grievances in a regular form, and compel them to avail themselves of irregular opportunities. This was the notion which the Government entertained of raising the dignity of that House in the eyes of the country. It was unfortunate that the Amendment of the hon. Member for the county of Galway (Mr. Mitchell Henry) had been introduced in a thin House, and in the almost total absence of all Government authority, because no more important Resolution had been proposed during the period that matter had been under discussion. The Government had admitted the principle that special opportunities ought to be given for the discussion of grievances relating to the Army and Navy, when the Estimates relating to those Services were going to be brought forward, yet they denied that there existed the same necessity of giving facility to discuss grievances in relation to the Civil Service Estimates when those Estimates were to be proceeded with. Nothing could be more illogical than the position of the Government on that point, and nothing could be more aggravating. They seemed to be desirous of provoking an opposition to their views from certain 1683 hon. Members which would enable them to propose a still further curtailment of their liberties. That they should be simply a recording Assembly, and take their cue from the Government of the day, was doubtless an idea which might commend itself to Members of the Cæsarist School, of which there were many in that House; but in the Civil Service Estimates they had to deal with diplomatic changes, with education, and with very many other subjects of the highest importance to the whole community—subjects which were more prolific of discussion than all the Votes of the Army and Navy Estimates put together. There was not much reason for discussion on the Army and Navy Estimates as a rule, because those Estimates did not enter into the domain of Party politics, both Parties in the House being interested in having an efficient Army and Navy; and only for the large number of officers who were in the House it was extremely probable the Estimates of those two Services would pass over quietly and after brief discussion, and with just a minimum of amicable conversation between the experts of the House. But the Civil Service Estimates covered ground of a very large extent, and they absolutely bristled with controversy. Those Estimates included such subjects as the administration of the Poor Law, Education, the Revenue, the Post Office, the Telegraph Service, and numberless other matters, while 99 per cent of the citizens of the Empire took no interest in the Army and Navy Estimates beyond the natural and moderate interest of knowing that they were being fairly conducted. On the other hand, 99 per cent of the people were obliged to take a deep interest in the Civil Service Departments, because their best and dearest interests were affected by them. Now, these Estimates were to be more and more withdrawn from the cognizance of Parliament; and by the proposal of the Government it appeared to be the intention of the Government to keep the people more and more from a knowledge of their own affairs. If it was the intention of the Government to rule without criticism and without observation; if it was their wish to do everything they pleased with the Civil Service Estimates, if they wanted to job and re-job, to be extravagant or parsimonious just as they pleased, to introduce arbitrary 1684 rules, to interfere with the discipline of prisons, to meddle with the conduct of education, to make and unmake in a hundred different ways without giving the people an opportunity of knowing what was going on, the policy which the Government was pursuing was just the one to accomplish those objects. Their proposals were a provocation to Members to combine together in order to interfere with the progress of Public Business, so that they might have something like an opportunity of bringing forward their grievances. The plan of the Government, therefore, instead of facilitating Business, would simply prove a stumbling-block. Their conduct was reconcilable with no theory of public government except that of Cæsarist rule, and ruling behind the backs of the people. The Government were proud of their majority, and as regarded their foreign policy, he believed, represented the views of the country, at least of the English people; but if they were to persevere with that attempt to stop grievances being hoard on the Civil Service Estimates, they would find they had lost more in the country that they had gained by their foreign policy.
§ Question put.
§ The House divided:—Ayes 49; Noes 88: Majority 39.—(Div. List, No. 21.)
§
Question again proposed,
That the words 'unless an Amendment be moved or Question raised relating to the Estimates proposed to be taken in Supply on first going into Committee on the Army, Navy, and Civil Services respectively,' be there added.
§ MR. O'DONNELLsaid, that in the interest of Ireland he felt bound to endeavour to obtain some opportunity for the discussion of Irish subjects in the Civil Service Estimates. He would therefore move an Amendment to insert words in the Resolution which would give an opportunity for raising discussion on going into Committee on the Classes of the Estimates relating to "Law, Justice, Education, and Public Works of Ireland." No one could say that was an obstructive Amendment. The Departments he had named were of the first importance conditioning the progress and prosperity of Ireland in the most vital manner. The conduct of the Government, on more than one occasion, supplied them with a precedent 1685 for making the present demand. They had, on more than one occasion, set apart a special day for the consideration of the Irish Classes of the Estimates, much to the convenience of Irish Members who wished to attend, and to the convenience of other Members who wished to be absent. Even though a powerful contingent of Ministerial supporters might be waiting to give Irish opinion its usual coup de grace, still it would be a satisfaction to the Irish people to know that their grievances had been brought forward.
§ MR. BIGGARseconded the Amendment.
§
Amendment proposed to the said proposed Amendment,
After the word "Services," to insert the words "and the Classes relating to Law, Justice, Education, and Public Works in Ireland."—(Mr. O'Donnell.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERdeprecated the insertion of the words proposed. He very much doubted whether they would have the effect of getting greater attention paid to Irish questions than under the proper application of the present system. He was sure the hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell), and those who sat near him, would themselves acknowledge that there was always a desire on the part of the Government so to arrange questions relating to Ireland that hon. Members might have an opportunity of discussing them on the Estimates. It had frequently happened that Irish Votes had been postponed for a considerable time for the convenience of Irish Members. He could assure hon. Gentlemen from Ireland that that was the spirit in which the Government desired to work, and that they always wished to consult the convenience of Irish Members by fixing such days for the discussion of Estimates relating to Ireland as might be convenient to them.
§ MR. BIGGAR, in supporting the Amendment, pointed out that, with a special night for Irish subjects, the argument as to convenience would apply as well to discussion before going into Committee as to discussion in Committee. They had heard much of obstruction which had occurred during the present Parliament, and which, in his 1686 opinion, was without a parallel. A Bill called the Agricultural Holdings Bill was before them night after night, and hours were spent upon its consideration; and yet he understood that it had never to this day been in operation in any degree in any part of England.
§ MR. SHAW LEFEVREopposed the Amendment. Its effect would be to give Irish Members an unfair advantage, and he did not see why Irish Members should have special opportunities of discussing their grievances which were not given to English and Scotch Members.
§ MR. M'LARENsaid, he generally voted with the hon. Members from Ireland for the removal of their grievances when these were real; but in the case of a fanciful grievance, which he held the one spoken of to be, he could not vote with them. There was a vast difference between the case of the removal of certain disabilities which he believed the Irish people did labour under and the present case, where they were not content with equality, but demanded superiority over England and Scotland. The description of Estimates mentioned in the Amendment were applicable to England and Scotland as much as to Ireland. Were the Irish Members to be allowed to bring forward, for instance, a Motion with regard to the administration of law in Ireland, and the Scotch Members not to be allowed an equal right to bring forward a Motion in regard to the administration of law in Scotland? In Ireland, for example, they got out of that Class of Estimates two or three times as much as Scotland; and why should Scotland not have the right to bring forward her great grievance in reference to her treatment in this respect compared with Ireland that got so much, while Scotland got so little? This being a claim not for equality, but for superiority, he must vote against the Amendment.
MR. O'CONNOR POWER, referring to the Chancellor of the Exchequer's statement that the Irish Members had always had great facilities given them for bringing forward their grievances, said, he must be allowed to point out that what had happened before in reference to Irish grievances was no criterion of what would happen in future in consequence of the passing of the first Resolution. The hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. M'Laren) had delivered 1687 what he doubtless considered was a conclusive speech. He asked why Irish Members should want the privilege of raising questions on going into Committee of Supply, when English and Scotch Members would have no such privilege? But if English and Scotch Members voluntarily surrendered their privileges, the Irish Members were made of different and sterner stuff. It might be that public virtue would take refuge amongst the Irish Members, and they alone might be permitted to make a stand to maintain the Constitution. Moreover, there was a great difference between the Irish and the English Civil Service Estimates, lie remembered a case in point. A public meeting was held in Phænix Park, Dublin. The Irish Government issued orders to the police to disperse the meeting by force, and that was actually done. Now, no one would contend that that was not a subject that might be fairly brought before the House of Commons. It was so brought before the House of Commons. The Irish Government repented of its conduct before a week had elapsed, and the meeting was held after all in the place it was intended to be held. The Irish Government receded from its position, and it was afterwards adjudged blamable in the Courts of Justice. But what would have happened if it had not been possible to bring forward the smallest grievance on going into the Irish Estimates? It would not have been in the power of any Irish Member, under this first Resolution, to call attention to that violation of Constitutional power. He therefore maintained that the circumstances would be entirely changed if this Resolution became a Rule of the House. For these reasons, it appeared to him that the hon. Member for Dungarvan had acted wisely and judiciously in proposing this Amendment, and if it were carried to a division he should certainly give it his hearty support.
§ MR. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSENsaid, he was always desirous of meeting the views of Irish Members if he could possibly do so: he admired the eloquence of the Irish Representatives, even if their arguments failed to convince him, and he thought they would be quite as able as English or Scotch Members to find opportunities for bringing their grievances before the House. 1688 Why should Irish Members desire additional privileges? They ought to blush to make such a demand. What did it virtually mean? That, whilst all other Members were clever enough to find means to bring their grievances before the House in the ordinary way, Irish Members alone were not competent to do so. As a friend to Ireland, he indignantly denied such an imputation upon her Representatives. Some Irish Members had, during the course of the debate, spoken as if there were those in the House who thought themselves superior to Irish Members. He was sure he might disclaim such an idea on behalf of every Member of the House; and, for his own part, he should be very sorry to lose the Members from the sister country. But he could not see why Irish Members alone should require special opportunities of bringing their grievances before the House. He dissented from any attempt to separate Irish Members from the great body of the House; and the House would be paying no compliment to the Irish Members by offering them such special protection as they claimed.
§ MR. O'SHAUGHNESSYsaid, no matter how eloquent the speeches of the Irish Members, the grievances had remained; but they should cease, whether Irish affairs were managed in London or in Dublin. If not, they would see, as at present, compliments coming from the front Opposition Bench and stern refusal from the Government. He saw before him the Gentleman representing Hyde Park (Mr. Noel), the Gentleman who represented the workhouses (Mr. Sclater-Booth), and others; but where was the Chief Secretary; he was not in his place? Under the present system one Minister was responsible for every Irish Department, often a young man without claims on Ireland, and totally unacquainted with her position, and even without official training. He was completely in the hands of the officials in Dublin. The system was entirely separate from that which prevailed in England. It only required a man to show some ability in the matter of Irish affairs—as the late Chief Secretary did—and to show he was capable of doing something, to have him promoted, and another person sent in his stead. They might send constabulary soldiers to spy over the sermons in 1689 churches; but it was only when Press attacks w-ere made on the Lord Lieutenant that notice was taken of such an occurrence. That state of things could not occur in England, and would not occur in Ireland if ample opportunity were given to expose special abuses. Scotland was part and parcel of this Kingdom, and her affairs were managed at the Home Office. That was not the case with Ireland. He could assure the House that something more than an assimilation of the laws was required before Ireland became prosperous. The country wanted careful, well watched, and impartial administration. Heretofore, the administration had not been careful or impartial—it had been fall of abuses, and until these defects were remedied there would be no respect for British laws in Ireland.
MR. SULLIVANsaid, it. had been suggested that Irish Members wanted to be supplied with facilities beyond the Rules of the House; but what really was the case was that the Irish Members said if the Government were going to restrict the liberties of the House hitherto enjoyed they, at least, would oppose it. They were standing there in defence of existing privileges, and not to ask for any special favour. Their position in the struggle they were making that night was not for the purpose of hindering the progress of the debate on the Rules in any way; but it was because the Irish Members believed sincerely the Government wished to take from them almost the last advantage which they possessed as Members from Ireland. It was argued that as they were steadily voted down by an arithmetical majority, and that nothing they could say would convert the majority, they had better hold their tongues. His answer was that there was a great advantage in their using their place in Parliament for leavening the public opinion of Parliament and the country, and of enlightening them on the way in which Ireland was governed, and the way in which she ought to be governed. The late Chief Justice Whiteside said the country was governed by Larcom and the police. Larcom, he might tell the House, was the Under Secretary of Dublin Castle, and why had he the government of the country in his hands? Because the House was too busy to think about discussing those questions on the Irish 1690 Estimates, which really concerned the Government of Ireland. Mr. Horsman, who graduated in Ireland, as did also the late Chief Secretary before he was appointed to look after the Zulus, was asked to say how he governed the country, and his reply was that he did the hunting and Carlisle did the dancing. Since 1674, however, Ireland had a real representation in the House; and at the peril of incurring the misunderstanding of the House, and often even facing its anger, Members had stood there to insist on debating, and thoroughly debating, Irish questions—often inconveniently, sometimes, perhaps, with somewhat of ill-temper, but still discussing them usefully. Whatever progress had been made in England—and there had been great progress in England within the last few years towards a better understanding of Irish questions, and towards a more friendly feeling between the two countries—was consequent on the excitation of English feeling by the debates on Irish grievances; and he had no hesitation in saying that Coercion Bills and Prison Bills, such as existed in Ireland, would not be tolerated in England so long if the English people had better known of their existence. He appealed to the House not to curtail the liberties of the Irish Members; because the present was the only arrangement by which they could protest against a majority which ignored the opinions of the Irish people constitutionally ex-pressed.
§ MR. PARNELLsaid, he thought the hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. M'Laren) was a little unreasonable in denying to the Irish Members the right of doing something for themselves. The hon. Member had referred to other parts of the Kingdom. Those for whom he (Mr. Parnell) spoke would not be opposed to an extension of the principle which they claimed for themselves to Scotland and to England. On the contrary, he firmly believed that his hon. Friend (Mr. O'Donnell) would willingly agree, if the House desired it, to alter his Amendment so as to include those two countries. At the same time, many of the Irish Representatives believed that there were reasons why, perhaps, Ireland might ask to be exceptionally treated in this matter. There was a very exceptional Government in Ireland, which, practically, consisted of the Se- 1691 cretary to the Lord Lieutenant, who occasionally strolled into the House to see how the amusement was progressing. The Irish Members had not the opportunities which were enjoyed by English and Scotch Representatives of urging their grievances, in connection with the various Departments, upon the attention of the Legislature, and they were few in number in a House consisting of 650 Gentlemen. They were thus placed at a disadvantage from the start in balloting for a place on going into Committee of Supply; and that disadvantage would be increased one hundredfold by the action of the Resolution of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, if it were to be adopted without the Amendment which was now urged. That Amendment appeared to him to be a very small and reasonable proposition. The Leader of the House knew perfectly well that the Irish Members bad in no instance misused the privileges which they now possessed; that the questions which they had brought forward had been few in number; and that those questions had not unduly occupied the attention of the House. In these circumstances, surely a little concession of the description now proposed to Irish public opinion was well merited, and he believed that it would be received with kindly feelings. The Chancellor of the Exchequer might think he would facilitate the obtaining of the Irish Estimates by the course which he was following; but if that course were to be persisted in, there was no resource for the Representatives from Ireland but to refuse Votes on Account in connection with ail those questions in which they were interested, and thus compel the Government to bring-forward their Estimates at an early period of the Session, in order that they might be properly discussed. At present, their discussion was little bettor than a farce.
§ MR. DILLWYNwas strongly in favour of there being a more efficient and careful consideration of the Votes; but he could not support a proposal which would give his Irish Friends exceptional privileges.
§ MR. SERJEANT SIMONsaid, he sympathized very much with the Irish Representatives in the complaints and grievances which they brought forward; but he could not support them when they sought exceptional privileges which he did not think they could properly ask 1692 for. He reminded them that the Rule of 1872, which was substantially the same as the proposal of the hon. and gallant Baronet, which the Government had accepted, was passed by a Parliament which had done more for Ireland than any other, and under no less a person than the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenwich, one of the best Friends that Ireland ever had. Under his Administration the Church of England and Ireland had been disestablished, and the Land Laws had been altered and brought into conformity with the wishes of the Irish people. It was during the Administration and in a Parliament which had accomplished these things, and many others, for the good of Ireland, that the Rule he was speaking of had been passed, and no Irish Member then, that he could call to mind, had objected to it. Under the circumstances, therefore, he appealed to the Irish Members to withdraw the Amendment.
§ MR. MITCHELL HENRYsaid, the Irish Members were not seeking any exceptional privileges. They simply asked to be allowed to retain those rights which English and Scotch Representatives had willingly given up at the instigation of the two front Benches on either side of the House. This was nothing more nor less than a combination between those two Benches. Those for whom he spoke had done their best to preserve the privileges of the House; but they were the trustees of a poor and weak nation. It was trampled on by the Government Session after Session. ["Oh!"] They were the trustees of a people who were insulted day after day. ["Oh!"] Why, in the course of the recent debate upon the Irish Franchise Question, one Representative—partly an official Member, for he was private Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant—had spoken in a manner which was grossly insulting to Ireland and her people. The Government refused to give Ireland equality of privileges; and its inhabitants were mocked year after year by being told in articles in English newspapers and speeches from the two front Benches in the House that they had the same privileges as England enjoyed. They were now going to take away from the Irish Members even the facility of making their complaints known. Did they suppose that Irish Members, who 1693 had been driven to move this Amendment against their will, would now withdraw it? They were perfectly mistaken if they thought they would do anything of the kind. He did not care how small the number might be in the division in favour of the Amendment—it would at least be a protest. He knew hon. Members who represented English and Scotch constituencies, who often voted with the Irish Members, but who would not do so as regarded this Amendment—and for why? Because they knew that in a weak moment they had given up their privileges; and they now saw the stubborn fight the Irish Members were making for the possession of theirs—therefore, the English and Scotch Members would not vote with them, because it would imply that they had not endeavoured sufficiently to keep their own privileges. The Irish Party would carry with them into the Lobby none but the Irish votes; yet it would be a protest which would go farther and would remain on record as a proof or test that they had done what they could to help the English Members to retain their privileges, and that the English Members did not support them when they wanted to retain theirs. Let that fact be known to the country, and it would be known in history; though he ventured to say that this Rule would not remain many years unaltered, because it would he found to trench too much on the privileges of the Members who would form the new Parliament.
§ Question put.
§ The House divided:—Ayes 31; Noes 131: Majority 100.—(Div. List, No. 22.)
§
Question,
That the words 'unless an Amendment he moved relating to the Estimates proposed to be taken in Supply, on first going into Committee on the Army, Navy, and Civil Services respectively,' he added to the First Resolution,
—put, and agreed to.
§
Main Question, as amended, proposed,
That, whenever the Committee of Supply appointed for the consideration of the ordinary Army, Navy, and Civil Service Estimates stands as the first Order of the Day on a Monday, Mr. Speaker shall leave the Chair without putting any Question, unless an Amendment be moved or Question raised relating to the Estimates proposed to be taken in Supply on first going into Committee on the Army, Navy, and Civil Services respectively.
§
MR. PARNELL moved to amend the Resolution, by adding the words—
And unless Notice has been given of an Amendment to be offered to the Question calling attention to the grievance arising out of the conduct of the Government or the administration of the Laws.
All he wanted was to retain the ancient privilege of calling attention to grievances, and in drawing his Amendment lie had carefully followed the words used by Sir Erskine May in his book on Parliamentary practice.
§
Amendment proposed,
At the end of the Question, to add the words "unless Notice has been given of an Amendment to be offered to the Question calling attention to any grievance arising out of the conduct of the Government or the administration of the Laws.
—(Mr. Tarnell.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he did not think the House would accept the proposal of the hon. Member, inasmuch as it could only have the effect of introducing great confusion into the conduct of Business as to what was and was not admissible in the way of Amendment to the Motion to go into Committee of Supply. If the Resolution as it was drawn were adopted, there would remain abundant opportunities for calling attention to any grievances which might be alleged to have resulted from mismanagement on the part of the Government, and those opportunities were made conspicuous by the action of hon. Members on the other side.
§ MR. MORGAN LLOYDsaid, he had in previous divisions voted in the minority, but on the present occasion lie should support Her Majesty's Government; because he regarded the Amendment before the House as an attempt to re open a question which he thought had been compromised. It might be said that every grievance worthy of being made the subject of an Amendment on going into Committee of Supply was directly or indirectly a grievance arising out of the conduct of the Government, or the administration of the law. The proposed Amendment, therefore, simply raised in another form the question already decided by the House.
§ MR. O'DONNELLdenied that every Amendment which was moved on the Motion to go into Committee of Supply 1695 was necessarily a question calling attention to a grievance arising out of the conduct of the Government or the administration of the laws; and it was not a good omen that the Members of the Liberal Party, such as the one who had just spoken, should support the Government in their policy of gagging and despotism. Not only the liberties of the Irish people, but those of the English people, were being sacrificed; and he repeated that it was a curious thing to see that this policy was supported by Members of the Liberal Party, who desired to succeed the present Party in the reins of power.
MR. O'CONNOR POWERsaid, that if the argument of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Beaumaris (Mr. Morgan Lloyd) were really a sound one, he should be inclined to appeal to his hon. Friend the Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell) not to press the Amendment.
§ MR. O'CLERYremarked that he would give his hearty support to the Amendment of the lion. Member for Meath, because it involved, he thought, a question of great importance to Irish Members, who represented a country where it could not be said that the laws were administered as fairly and equitably as in England. It was, unfortunately, the case that in too many instances legal appointments in that country were bestowed as a reward for services to a particular Party. That principle had boon extended even to the Bench; and there was a time when men who had served their Party in that House at the expense of their own honour and conscience were actually raised to the Irish Bench. English Members might be proud that the Judicial Bench in this country had never been disgraced in that way. There had been many offices in Ireland which had been filled up by persons whose sole claims consisted of services, sometimes of a doubtful character, which they had rendered to their Party; and therefore he maintained that the Amendment of his hon. Friend was worthy of consideration, when they took into account the position which Ireland held in that respect. By the Constitution, Ireland was allowed to be represented in that House; and yet they were about to deny to her Representatives the light of criticizing the action of the men 1696 whom the Government sent, against their wish, to administer justice in that country. He thought that his hon. Friend deserved the thanks of every liberty-loving man in that House for bringing forward this Amendment; and he sincerely hoped that a good many Members on both sides would be found to support it. He had not taken much part in these discussions; but he must say that, in his humble judgment, the best of the argument had been entirely on the side of the men who had striven to protect the House with its traditions of 600 years of freedom, and the defence of public right against the attempt of a Minister, however powerful, to force his will upon it. It was still not too late to say to the Minister that if he had any regard for the honour of the institutions which Ministers were so much in the habit of extolling at the Mansion House and elsewhere, he would, at any rate, accede to the Amendment, if he could not altogether abandon the Resolution.
§ MR. BIGGARobserved that the Amendment raised a very different point to that which usually arose out of Motions moved as Amendments to the Motion that the Speaker leave the Chair. The laws in Ireland were administered by persons who received no salaries, and to whom no money was voted directly or indirectly; so that, in reality, there would be no opportunity during the progress of Votes through Committee whereby to impugn their conduct, should it be thought necessary. Really, in many cases, administration of the law was of the most partial character, and the instances in which magistrates misconducted themselves were by no means rare. Therefore, they ought to have an opportunity, as the occasion arose, of discussing the conduct of the great unpaid. In the case of the Judges it was altogether different, because they could move to reduce their salaries, and perhaps it might become necessary to do so. Some of their Judges administered the law in a manner which made it a burlesque. He had been told by a gentleman connected with the Profession that one of the Judges now on the Bench was thoroughly incapable of trying criminal cases, because his invariable custom was to go for a conviction. What, then, could they expect from the great unpaid, who, in many cases, were thoroughly ignorant of their duties, and 1697 were in all cases greatly prejudiced? The Government would do well, therefore, to agree to the Amendment, and thus give an opportunity to hon. Members to raise questions as to the administration of the laws in a Constitutional manner.
§ Question put.
§ The House divided:—Ayes 47; Noes 139: Majority 92.—(Div. List, No. 23.)
§ Main Question, as amended, again proposed.
§ MR. O'CONNOR POWER moved an Amendment to the effect that on Fridays Notices of Motion should have precedence of Orders of the Day.
§
Amendment proposed,
At the end of the Question, to add the words "and on Fridays Notices of Motion shall have precedence of Orders of the Day."—(Mr. O'Connor Power.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
§ MR. MONKthought the Amendment was one deserving of the attention of the Government. The Government would lose nothing by accepting it, and they would, further, confer a fair and reasonable boon upon Members on Fridays.
§ MR. SERJEANT SIMONsupported the Amendment.
§ MR. SHAW LEFEVREpointed out the inconvenience to private Members which arose on Fridays, when Supply was the first Order of the Day, from their being frequently unable to bring their Motions to the test of a Division, owing to the fact that any of the preceding Motions happened to have been negatived. He did not, however, know whether the present Amendment would furnish the best means of obviating that inconvenience.
§ MR. BERESFORD HOPEdisapproved of the Amendment. There had been quite enough in the way of innovation in the conduct of the Business of the House, and in this case matters might with advantage be left as they were. The present Rule imported something of elasticity into their forms, and gave an opening for discussions on topics worthy of consideration, but not calling for cut-and-dry Resolutions. It would be a clear loss to the facile powers of the House if this free and easy method were 1698 abolished, and a hard-and-fast compulsion of Divisions on all days substituted.
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER, without entering into the merits of the question, pointed out that it would be difficult, if not impossible, for the Government to make the proposed alteration. He hoped the Amendment would not be pressed, as he apprehended it would not be, in order to attempt to repeal, as it were by a side wind, a Standing Order of the House in accordance with which Supply was set down on the Notice Paper as the first Business on Fridays.
§ MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, the system of "calling attention" was almost unheard of when he first entered Parliament. It was a practice which had the effect of debarring the House from expressing an opinion, and, at the same time, enabled individual Members tyrannically to occupy the attention of the House.
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, he quite agreed with what had been said as to the undesirable practice of invariably negativing the first Motion for going into Supply. He did not believe it was of any advantage to the Government; because the effect was that many of the Motions that remained were put down for some other day. He did not know whether any practical remedy could be adopted against this practice; but it was one which, no doubt, it would be well to put a stop to. With regard to the Amendment that had been moved, there was one suggestion he wished to make for the consideration of Members who delighted to call themselves independent. They ought to recollect that if Friday were converted from an Order Day into a Notice Day, the probability of a "Count-out" on Friday would be increased. At present, it was very much to the interest of the Government to keep a House on Friday; but this would no longer be the case if Friday were converted into a Notice Day. The gain, if any, which the independent Members would obtain would be, to a considerable extent, neutralized by the great risk of losing the evening altogether.
§ MR. MORGAN LLOYDsuggested that the Rules of the House might be altered so far as to allow a Division on every Motion brought forward as an 1699 Amendment to the Motion that the Speaker should leave the Chair.
§ MR. PARNELLsaid, he was very much disappointed with the reply of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The right hon. Gentleman had promised last year to give private Members compensation by making Friday a Motion night instead of a Supply night. Now he seemed to think that private Members ought to have no compensation at all for their loss in giving up Mondays.
§ MR. ERRINGTON and MR. BIGGARsupported the Amendment.
§ MR. ANDERSONsuggested that, instead of the Speaker putting the Question in a form which, if affirmed, prevented any Amendment, subsequent to the first being voted upon, on a Supply night, he might put it, "That the Amendment be affirmed," and this would allow of every subsequent one being voted upon. The Government might also revert to the old practice of keeping a House on Fridays.
§ Question put.
§ The House divided:—Ayes 50; Noes 139: Majority 89.—(Div. List, No. 24.)
§ Main Question, as amended, again proposed.
§ MR. BIGGARsaid, the next Amendment stood on the Paper in the name of his hon. Friend the Member for Dun-garvan (Mr. O'Donnell); but as he was prevented from moving it by the Rules of debate, he had undertaken to move it for him. It was to add, at the end of the amended Resolution—
Provided always, That when Notice of a Motion has been given which, but for this Rule, would have been moved on a Monday, the next succeeding Committee of Ways and Means shall be a first Order of the Day, and Notices applicable on going into Committee of Supply on Monday shall he transferred to going into Committee on Ways and Means.He expected the Government would accept the Amendment, for the reason that originally Ways and Means was included in Supply; but during the early stages of the discussion on this question the Government agreed to withdraw Ways and Means from the operation of the Rule. The object of the Amendment was to give an opportunity of discussing general questions on the Motion to go into Committee of Ways and Means. If the Government assented to this 1700 principle it could only be reasonable to make Ways and Means the first Order, as otherwise these questions might be brought on at a very late hour.
§
Amendment proposed,
At the end of the Question, to add the words "Provided always, That when Notice of a Motion has been given which, but for this Rule, would have been moved on a Monday, the next succeeding Committee of Ways and Means shall be a first Order of the Day, and Notices applicable on going into Committee of Supply on Monday shall be transferred to going into Committee on Ways and Means."—(Mr. Biggar)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, the hon. Member could not have expected the Amendment to be accepted by the Government. According to it, the next succeeding Committee of Ways and Means would be a Wednesday, for it was a Standing Order of the House that Ways and Means should always be on the Paper on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays. Therefore, the next day for the Committee would be Wednesday. The hon. Member next proposed that the Committee on that day should have precedence. But by the Rules of the House Bills of private Members had precedence on Wednesdays. Therefore, this proposal would create considerable confusion. He did not himself see what object would be gained by the Amendment; because if any hon. Member failed to bring on his Motion on Committee of Supply he could himself postpone it to the next occasion of Ways and Means, with the exception, of course, that he could not take precedence of those hon. Members who had already put their Motions. They would only be encumbering themselves by passing this Resolution.
§ MR. O'DONNELLsaid, the Chancellor of the Exchequer had very clearly and lucidly shown that the concession of the Committee of Ways and Means, on which lie laid so much stress last week, did not amount to anything at all. He had asked the House to give the Government a great deal of credit for their concessions with regard to the Committee of Ways and Means; but as it was now admitted that by the present Standing Orders the Committee was only fixed for certain days, it was quite clear that to call attention to grievances previously 1701 would be very little use. It followed conclusively that the Government had made a concession which was, in fact, no concession whatever; and he strongly suspected that several other so-called concessions should be cast under the same head.
§ MR. BIGGARsaid, by the advice of his lion. Friend the Member for Dun-garvan (Mr. O'Donnell) he would withdraw the Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Main Question, as amended, put.
§ The House divided:—Ayes 130; Noes 50: Majority 80.—(Div. List, No. 25.)
§ Resolved, That, whenever the Committee of Supply appointed for the consideration of the ordinary Army, Navy, and Civil Service Estimates stands as the first Order of the Day on a Monday, Mr. Speaker shall leave the Chair without putting any question, unless an Amendment be moved or Question raised relating to the Estimates proposed to be taken in Supply on first going into Committee on the Army, Navy, and Civil Services respectively.
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, there were other Resolutions on the Paper, but it would be obviously impossible to move them at that hour. He should propose, therefore, that they stand over till Thursday week. On Thursday his right hon. and gallant Friend the Secretary of State for War would introduce the Mutiny Bill; and he hoped on that day to take Supply as the first Order for the purpose of taking some Supplementary Estimates, which would be presented next day—Tuesday—for the purpose of providing for the Exchequer Bonds, shortly falling due. He hoped to lay the Estimates on the Table to-night (Tuesday), to have them in the hands of Members on Wednesday, and to go into Committee of Supply on Thursday.
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsupposed that the Orders of the Day would be postponed after Supply had been taken till the Mutiny Bill had been brought in.
§ MAJOR NOLANasked whether the Government could bring on the Mutiny Bill in that way before the Army Estimates had been submitted?
§ COLONEL STANLEYsaid, it was perfectly competent for the Government to do this. The Mutiny Bill of this year would consist of two parts—one that 1702 which he proposed to introduce on Thursday, and the other the annual Bill, which gave the actual control over the Force.
§ MAJOR NOLANsaid, he had always understood that the Mutiny Bill could not be introduced till after the Army Estimates had been voted. Was this a change that the Government was introducing; and, if so, what authority had they for making it?
MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, the Secretary of State for War proposed to introduce on Thursday what was, in fact, an Army Discipline Bill; and this, when passed, would be a permanent Act. He would also introduce afterwards a short Mutiny Bill, which would have to be passed year by year, and which undoubtedly could not be introduced until the Army Estimates had been brought in.
§ Further Consideration of Resolutions relating to the Business of the House deferred till Thursday 6th March.