§ Clause 145 (Punishment for pretending to be a deserter).
§ SIR ARTHUR HAYTERmoved, as an Amendment, in page 78, line 28, to leave out the words " or absentee without leave."
§ MAJOR NOLANasked for some explanation of the Amendment.
§ MAJOR NOLANsaid, it was not on the Paper, and its effect ought to be explained by the hon. Member.
§ SIR ARTHUR HAYTERsaid, his Amendment would restore the law to its present position with regard to absentees without leave.
§ MAJOR NOLANagreed with the Amendment; but explained that he felt it necessary to be cautious in allowing Amendments not on the Paper to pass. He had feared that its object was one of an opposite tendency.
§ Amendment agreed to; words struck out accordingly.
§ SIR ARTHUR HAYTERmoved, as an Amendment, in page 78, to leave out all the words after the word months," in line 30, down to the end of the clause.
§ Amendment agreed to; words struck out accordingly.
§ Clause, as amended, agreed to.
§ Clause 146 (Punishment for inducing soldiers to desert).
§ MR. O'DONNELLmoved, as an Amendment, to omit, in page 79, line 6, the words " directly or indirectly." The clause contained a severe penalty, which might be imposed on almost anybody by stretching the application of these words.
§ Amendment agreed to; words struck out accordingly.
§ SIR ARTHUR HAYTERmoved, as an Amendment, the omission from subsection 1, lines 7 and 8, of the words " or absent himself without leave."
§ Amendment agreed to; words struck out accordingly.
1665§ SIR ARTHUR HAYTERmoved, as an Amendment, the omission from subsection 3, lines 32 and 33, of the words " or absentee without leave."
§ Amendment agreed to; words struck, out accordingly.
§ Clause, as amended, agreed to.
§ Clause 147 (Apprehension of deserters or absentees without leave).
§ SIR ARTHUR HAYTERmoved, as an Amendment, to omit from page 79, line 17, the words " or absentees without leave."
§ Amendment agreed to; words struck out accordingly.
§ MR. PARNELLhoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would now agree to report Progress. This was a very important clause. It would be necessary to ask the Government to make considerable alterations in the clause. He moved that Progress be reported.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Parnell.)
§ COLONEL STANLEYprotested against such a proceeding at a time when there were no disputed Amendments, and hoped the Committee would proceed. The Committee would be perfectly willing to consider the Amendments of the hon. Gentleman, although they were not on the Paper, if he would explain them.
§ MR. O'DONNELLthought fair progress had been made to-day—a progress not to be counted by the number of clauses only, for a foundation had been laid for future progress, by means of an agreement on the most contentious parts of the Bill. There would now be a disposition to treat the subject of flogging as calmly as possible next week, and with the desire to come to terms regarding it. There were important Amendment to this clause, and he was certain that to proceed with them now would not be fair. If the Government had given warning that they were going to have anything like a late Sitting, their Friends might have been fairly consulted as to the support they were prepared to give to those Amendments; but the position in which the Government had placed some hon. Members, by 1666 threatening an all night Sitting, had come upon them by surprise, and completely upset all their arrangements. That was not calculated to save time; because there were quite enough of his Friends in the House to prevent any progress, although not enough to secure what they desired: but they did not wish to be guided by a consideration of the position from that point of view, but by the consideration of the support which they wished their Amendments to receive. A number of hon. Members, who would, undoubtedly, support some of their Amendments, were not present, having had no notice as to the length of the Sitting. It was all very well for the Government to speak of the exigencies of Public Business. Bandyings were not Public Business; and a Bill that there was not the opportunity of fairly amending was not to be considered a good Bill. Let the Government weigh their responsibility, and consider whether they were prepared to force on a Bill at such an hour, without due notice to the body of the House. This threat of the Government to resort to physical force, without giving Notice of their intention, must materially injure the progress of Public Business. The Government was attempting to bring pressure to bear on the Committee, and for that purpose they had evidently taken into their confidence a number of hon. Members of their own Party, and, perhaps, some of the more subservient Members of the Opposition. [Cries of " Order! " and " Withdraw! "]
THE CHAIRMANSuch language cannot be permitted. The hon. Member will see that it is not respectful to the Committee to speak of any of its Members as " subservient."
§ MR. O'DONNELLsaid, he would withdraw the words " more subservient," and substitute " more facile," " more disposed to listen to the powers that be," or anything of that sort. But the Government had kept back their intention from the majority of the Committee, and that reduced the legislation by Parliament by deliberation to legislation by previous confederacy. That, he submitted, amounted to a confederacy against the liberties of the individual Members.
§ EARL PERCYMr. Chairman, I rise to Order. The hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell) has used 1667 words to the effect that certain Members of this Committee are more subservient than others, and you have ruled that those words are out of Order. I ask you, whether he has withdrawn those words, or whether he has not?
§ MR. O'DONNELLI substituted other words. ["Withdraw, withdraw!"] I have already withdrawn them; and I think that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when he brings his faithful followers down, might, at least, induce them to listen to what is going on in the Committee. I might have concluded by this time; but they, apparently, neither listen to your ruling, Sir, nor to what I am saying. They might keep their eyes on the Chair, and, when they see the Chairman is well satisfied, rest content. It is nothing short of being disrespectful to the Chair to be continually lecturing the Chairman on this, that or the other. I think our respected Chairman is quite able to take care of the Order of this Committee, without being continually lectured on his duties, and appealed to by the professional conversationalists below the Gangway. Some compact appears to have been entered into that has not been communicated to the general body of the Committee.
MR. ASSHETON CROSSI only want to make one observation to hon. Members. At present we are settling nothing. The hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell) says ho has certain Amendments to propose in the clause. It may very likely be that his Amendments may be accepted by the Government. He has given us no Notice of them; and I presume, therefore, that something has struck him now that has not struck him before. If it had struck him before, it would have been only fair to the Committee to have put it on the Paper. If not, the Committee should, at all events, know what it is before he asks us to report Progress. It is quite clear that, at this time of night, there can be no long discussion; but if it is not a very important matter, we might be able to deal with the proposed Amendments at Once.
MR. SULLIVANsaid, he had previously appealed to the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell) to allow substantial progress to be made, on the 1668 understanding that if any attempt were made to detain Members an unduly long time, he would afterwards join him in resisting that attempt. Substantial progress had since been made, and now he was ready to join his hon. Friend in the most strenuous and protracted resistance to what was unreasonable. It was nearly 11 o'clock on Saturday night, and it was unreasonable either to ask anyone to state his Amendments, or to propose to go forward. He hoped there would be no attempt, by physical force, to keep hon. Members sitting.
§ LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICEsaid, he opposed the former Motion for reporting Progress; but there was certainly a difference between 7 o'clock and 11. He did not understand the Secretary of State for the Home Department to offer any determined opposition to the Motion for reporting Progress, but merely to suggest that the Amendments should be stated. It was rather extraordinary that, having studied the Bill as he had done, the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell) should not be able to state to the Committee the Amendments he wished to put. Perhaps, however, he wished to draft his Amendments very carefully; and it was the duty of the Committee to give the hon. Member the benefit of the doubt. He hoped, therefore, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, having substantially carried his point that Progress should be made, would now consent to the Motion.
§ MR. CALLANsaid, ho had a proposition to make with regard to the Amendments on the clause. Those Amendments raised serious questions. If the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War would consent to the postponement of the clause, upon which the Secretary of State for the Home Department had an Amendment which would cause a long discussion, he (Mr. Callan) and his Friends would not object to Clauses 148, 149, and 150 being proceeded with, provided that after Clause 150 had been agreed to Progress should be reported. He hoped the Government Bench would not refuse to accept this reasonable proposition.
§ MR. GRAYsaid, that was an admirable suggestion; but there was this against it—that there was an important Amendment on the Paper on Clause 150, and the hon. and gallant Member (Major O'Beirne), in whose name it 1669 appeared, was not present. He (Mr. Gray) did not think, under these circumstances, that the clause ought to pass sub silentio.
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, the Government were willing to consider the suggestion which had been thrown out; but there was a technical difficulty in the way. The clause had been amended, and, therefore, it could not be postponed. The Government were not anxious to keep the Committee sitting into Sunday; but what he would ask of the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell) was, that he should comply with the rather reasonable request which had been made, to tell the Committee what the Amendment was that he proposed to move. If he would do that, they should know what they were doing.
§ MR. PARNELLsaid, he thought that was very reasonable, and he had not the slightest objection to comply. Indeed, he must apologize for not having put his Amendment on the Paper; but it must be remembered that the Bill had been taken very quickly through the Committee. Consequently, those who had taken an active part in the Committee, as he had done, had not been able to draft all their Amendments. There was a vagueness about the words " reasonable suspicion," in the first place, which he desired to see corrected; and, next, he should like to leave out the words " any officer, or soldier, or other person," in line 22. That was a matter of some importance; for, in his opinion, it was the duty of the police constable to make these arrests. But he did not now wish to argue the Amendment; he merely wished to indicate his objections.
§ COLONEL STANLEYsaid, he thought the clause was not too strongly drawn. Did the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell) deliberately mean to put the proposition before the Committee that if an officer or a soldier of a regiment met a man belonging to the same regiment, knowing him to be a deserter, he should take no step to arrest such deserter? Was such a proposition conceivable? He asked the hon. Member to pause before he advanced it. Seeing what proportion the crime of desertion held among military offences, he (Colonel Stanley could not see that there was anything unreasonable in the clause, unless objection should be taken to the words " if absent without leave."
§ MR. O'DONNELLsaid, the matter was not so simple as the right hon. and gallant Gentleman seemed to think. It was a great thing to give to an ordinary soldier the power of arresting any man whom he suspected of being a deserter. A deserter was supposed to be a tolerably desperate sort of person, and the clause would offer the provocation to a deserter to put out of the way a soldier who was attempting to arrest him. If, on the other hand, they were to make a provision that the arrest was only to take place in the presence of a constable, they would bring in the direct influence of the law to bear on the arrest, and that was a very different thing. To allow an arrest to take place when it was only man against man would encourage to rioting, and such power had often led to deplorable consequences. The power of making arrests ought to be jealously guarded; and he could see many reasons why the provisions suggested by the Secretary of State for War should be carefully surrounded with safeguards.
§ MAJOR NOLANsaid, that in the matter in question the old Act was better drawn; it said " a constable, soldier, or other person," and he did not see any reason why it should not be so, instead of specific mention being made of " officer." But he objected to the way in which the whole clause was drawn, and the clause, as a whole, required careful consideration. A constable could be trusted in the ordinary administration of the law; but there was a money reward for the apprehension of a deserter, and that introduced a difficulty. The clause greatly extended the old power, because of the words " absentee without leave," which ran through the clause; and when these words were struck out in one part, the whole clause required to be re-modelled. The loss of time in this discussion was really to be laid to the charge of those who allowed a very objectionable provision to run through the whole clause. He thought the Amendment of the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell) was an important one. Of course, the money reward would make no difference to an officer; but it was a different matter to offer a soldier 40s. for arresting another soldier for being an absentee without leave. The Secretary of State for War ought to state whether he proposed to strike out those words, which he had 1671 struck out in one place, all through the clauses. If the words " absentee without leave " were retained at all, any soldier who was a mile or two from barracks would be at the mercy of every constable he met. He thought the right hon. and gallant Gentleman should be afforded an opportunity of re-modelling the clause.
§ MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he understood that the question before the Committee was that of reporting Progress. He did not know what the Government would consider a suitable hour; but he thought it was now time that Progress should be reported. Some general remarks had been made as to sitting up all night; but he did not suppose that there was any intention to do that. He could understand that the Government wished to make substantial progress with the Bill, and he was not surprised that the Government should have expected to get this clause passed, and also one or two other clauses, because no Amendments had been put on the Paper. He hoped hon. Members below the Gangway would excuse him if he made a remark on this point. He had not much knowledge with regard to the military details of the Bill, but he had had sonic little experience with regard to passing Bills through the House; and he did not think that, up to the present time, it had been a very usual thing to occupy the time of debate much with Amendments which were not on the Paper. The Government, when it was a question of getting on with the Business, and when a Bill had been so long before the House as this one, and had been so effectively considered as this had been—by the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell) himself, for instance—had almost a right to ask that the Amendments should be put on the Paper. Neither was it quite fair to the Committee that they should not have the Amendments before them. But he thought the Government might be content with what they had done that day, seeing that there would be a good deal of discussion, and that it was now too late an hour to go on. Much real progress had been made, and lion. Members who wished to amend the Bill might consider by Monday what Amendments they would put on the Paper.
§ COLONEL ARBUTHN0Tsaid, he thought the Amendments of the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell) were 1672 not of very great importance. He would, therefore, suggest that they might stand over until Report, and that the clause might be passed, together with the other clauses, to which the hon. Member for Dundalk (Mr. Callan) had said there would be no objection. The Government might then, he thought, be willing to report Progress.
§ COLONEL STANLEYsaid, he had been about to rise to make a similar proposal. So far as he could judge, he thought the words " absentee without leave " might come out consequentially, and the clause would then be precisely the same as that which had been administered for many years. The clause could not be postponed, because it had been amended; but if the Committee would pass the clause, ho thought Clauses 148 and 149 might also be agreed to, and then there would be no objection to reporting Progress. He thought that was a fair proposition to make.
§ SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, he should not oppose the suggestion if they were likely to make considerable progress; but Clause 148 was one as to which there was some difference of opinion, and it was to carry into effect important details with regard to the abolition of purchase.
§ MR. PARNELLsaid that, of course, in the opinion of the hon. and gallant Member for Hereford (Colonel Arbuthnot), no Amendment which he (Mr. Parnell) could offer was worthy of consideration. He never yet knew a Cabinet Minister who did not attempt to amend the Bill he had in charge. He quite admitted the force of the observations of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster), and he assured the Committee that he had striven very hard to put his Amendments on the Paper; but, owing to the protracted Morning Sittings, the only day which he had had for that purpose was the previous Sunday. He had been hardly worked, night and day, ever since. He had thought to have a chance of drafting some Amendments that day for Monday; but here he was again detained all day in the House. He regretted that he should be obliged again on Monday to move Amendments not on the Paper; he had hoped that, by working on Sunday, he should have a sufficient number drawn to get over Tuesday: but the Bill was really going 1673 on so fast that it was extremely difficult to keep up with the Government. He thought that the Secretary of State for War was treating him rather cavalierly, as he had other Amendments on the same clause. It was unreasonable to ask the Committee to go on further at present. He had submitted his objection to the clause, and he did not intend to argue it, lest he might be pounced upon by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and have his words taken down.
MR. SULLIVANsaid, he thought it was very undesirable that his hon. Friend the Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell) should be in any way manœuvred into a discussion on his Amendment, after he had, at the outset, stated that he was unable to enter upon it. It was an extremely clever strategical move on the part of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War. [" Oh, oh! "] It was surely consistent with all possible courtesy, and with Parliamentary usage, to credit a Minister for War with strategic ability; but, if it was an offence to do so, he would withdraw any such imputation, and would say that it was a good piece of Parliamentary tactics to draw his hon. Friend the Member for Meath into a discussion on his Amendment. He would now request his hon. Friend not to discuss it. He (Mr. Sullivan), for one, would have to speak on this point, and he would state the line he desired to take, but which he could not take that night. It was on the doctrine of allowing indiscriminate arrests by private soldiers; but he was not going to be entrapped into the discussion. The Motion was one to report Progress; and he hoped they would be allowed to go home, and that it would not be necessary, some half-hour hence, to move that the Chaplain be called to preside at proceedings, as he would be the Chairman more befitting a Sunday Sitting.
§ MR. HERSCHELLsaid, that if the Committee could make any real progress he would be prepared to go on; but they could not do that, and he hoped the Government would consent to report Progress.
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he could not help feeling that the appeal of the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Herschell), who had supported them so well that evening, was one that deserved the attention of the 1674 Committee. It was also to be borne in mind that when Progress was reported the House could not rise until the Speaker had again taken his seat. That would bring the time to past half-past 11, an hour beyond which it was not decent to sit. Under the circumstances, and considering the near approach of Sunday morning, he would agree to accept the Motion to report Progress.
§ SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTsaid, he just wished to say a word on the question The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster) had made a statement with regard to Amendments being on the Paper. Now, he (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) appealed to the right hon. Gentleman, as one of the most prominent Members of the late Government, to say whether in his recollection and experience—for he had had as long an experience as most Members of the House, and had had practical experience of the conduct of Business—Amendments had been brought forward without Notice during the progress of an important measure? He remembered the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Green with (Mr. Gladstone) saying that such a course was unfair to the Committee, and that it was one which the Committee ought not to tolerate for a moment. He hoped that hon. Members would not come forward with Amendments in that way, because he considered that it was done simply to delay the Bill. He would go further; he would say that he knew it was with the intention to delay the Bill.
§ MR. O'DONNELLrose to Order. He must presume that the hon. and gallant Baronet did not mean to imply anything un-Parliamentary?
§ SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTsaid, he spoke his mind. He believed he was perfectly in Order. It was his opinion that it was to the interest neither of hon. Members opposite, nor of the Committee, nor of the country, that they should be detained night after night on plainly fanciful Amendments. It was all very well to say that they were very important Amendments. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Louth (Mr. Sullivan) came down quietly and placidly, and pretending to be very good-humoured—[" Order, order! "]
§ MR. CALLANrose to Order. [Mr. PARNELL: Oh! but it is an unfinished 1675 sentence.] As it was not, he would ask the Chairman if it was Parliamentary, and within the bounds of Order, for an hon. and gallant Gentleman to state, with reference to the hon. and learned Member for Louth (Mr. Sullivan), that he was pretending, or acting a part?
THE CHAIRMANsaid, the words of the hon. and gallant Gentleman, as they reached him, were that the hon. and learned Member for Louth (Mr. Sullivan) was pretending to be good-humoured. That did not appear to him to be in any way un-Parliamentary.
§ SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTsaid, he perceived that the hon. and learned Member for Louth (Mr. Sullivan) himself took the expression in that sense. If the Amendment of the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell) were so important, then the hon. Member, seeing the position he occupied in the House, ought to have put it on the Paper. If he considered it important, then—and he was not now speaking of the Government, but of the House—he said he should not have omitted it from the Paper. He did not wish to lecture anybody—[" Oh " and laughter]—but anybody with experience—ho did not care whether the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar) laughed or not—if that hon. Member had any common sense, he would agree that the Amendment ought to be on the Paper. The Committee should not be called upon to consider Amendments which he (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) firmly believed had never been considered, but wore simply brought forward to obstruct the progress of the Bill.
§ Mr. CALLANagain rose; and Mr. ASSHETON CROSS rose at the same time.
MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he would not detain the Committee more than one minute; but he would make an appeal to the Committee, and to hon. Members opposite, on an extremely important matter with regard to the Business of the House. He had had charge of Bills that had taken a long time, and had been of great importance, and he thought it was absolutely essential to the conduct of Business that any Amendment involving a question of principle should be put on the Paper. Not to put 1676 such Amendments on the Paper was unfair, not only to the Committee, but to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman who had charge of the Bill, and who ought to be able to know beforehand what it was that he was to come down to discuss. He appealed to hon. Gentlemen, did they not feel that was absolutely essential?
§ MR. CALLANsaid, he rose to Order. It had been ruled in that House that when it was moved that words be taken down it could not be done if other Business intervened. It was also an invariable rule that when an hon. Member rose to Order he should have precedence over any other hon. Member who did not rise to Order. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department did not rise to Order, while he (Mr. Callan) did rise to Order, but he was put down; and now the ruling might be, that because of the intervention of the right hon. Gentleman, who did not rise to Order, the Motion which he (Mr. Callan) was about to make would be ruled out of Order. His Motion was that the words used by the hon. and gallant Member for West Sussex (Sir Walter B. Barttelot), containing a charge which had been ruled to be an offence to the House, be taken down. The hon. and gallant Gentleman had charged an hon. Member with a deliberate intention to obstruct the Business of the House. That was the charge—that was the offence charged against hon. Members of that House; and he rose for the purpose of moving that those words be taken down, when the right hon. Gentleman interposed; and if he was precluded by the Forms of the House from moving that, it was because the Chairman would not protect him when he first rose to Order. [" Oh, oh " and " Order! "]
§ MR. PARNELLsaid, he would appeal to his hon. Friend (Mr. Callan) not to press his Motion to take down the words of an hon. and gallant Member, which were certainly very absurd. The hon. and gallant Baronet occasionally gave them a little curtain-lecture, and perhaps one who was so much their senior was not always conscious of his actions at such a late hour. [" Order!"] He meant to say his inclinations had somewhat carried him away. At any rate, Motions for taking down the 1677 words of hon. Members were very inconvenient, and he was sure his hon. Friend did not mean to press the Motion.
§ LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICEsaid, the hon. Member for Dundalk (Mr. Callan) was quite wrong as to the ruling in that House. The ruling of Mr. Speaker had reference to hon. Members who " wilfully and persistently " obstructed. The hon. and gallant Baronet the Member for West Sussex (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) did not use the words " wilfully and persistently " obstruct, but only the word " obstruct." Wilfully and persistently" were grave words, and the distinction was an important one. In the second place, Mr. Speaker had ruled that the accusation must have been brought against one or more particular Members, but no such accusation had now been brought; it was a general accusation that certain hon. Members were obstructing the Business of the House.
THE CHAIRMANsaid, that when the hon. Member for Dundalk (Mr. Callan) rose at the same time as the Secretary of State for the Home Department, he (the Chairman) certainly was not aware that the hon. Member rose to Order, as no intimation of that kind reached the Chair. If any such intimation were given, he did not catch the words. If he had understood that the hon. Gentleman rose to Order, he should undoubtedly have given him the precedence to which he was clearly entitled.
§ MR. CALLANsaid, he did rise to Order; but he accepted the explanation of the hon. Gentleman fully and freely. He knew, of course, that if the Secretary of State for the Home Department rose he would be prevented from fastening the charge he wished to make on the hon. and gallant Baronet (Sir Walter B. Barttelot). The fact arose from the Chairman having called upon the right hon. Gentleman, although he (Mr. Callan) himself rose upon a point of Order, so that he was prevented from moving to have the words of the hon. and gallant Baronet taken down. Those words were—" with the intention to obstruct the Business of this House." He differed very much from the noble Lord the Member for Calne; and he believed that his assistance offered to the Government was that some day he might tide into Office. He hoped it might be 1678 very far distant; for, differing from the Government as he did, he thought it had better Representatives than the noble Lord who represented Calne.
MR. ASSHETON CROSShoped he might now be allowed to conclude his observations. Of course, if he had understood the hon. Member for Dundalk (Mr. Callan) rose to Order, he would not have kept his place at the Table, but should have sat down at once. He had risen to appeal to the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell) if he could not put the whole of his Amendments on the Paper before Monday to be good enough to put the substance of them, in order to guide the Government in coming to some conclusion. He was bound to add that he was extremely struck by what fell from the hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. J. Cowen.) This was the most popular Assembly in the world, and all nations looked up to it. They had great institutions—Household Suffrage. [" No, no! Germany, America."] They were far freer than any other country. [Mr. O'DONNELL: No, no! Germany, America.] He was not going to argue that question with hon. Members. They saw what he wished to say, practically, that they had great institutions, which they had long looked up to and respected; and he did put it to the Committee that they should conduct their Business in such a manner that they might again win the respect of the country. He was sure that was the wish of hon. Members; and he hoped when they met again that all that would have been passed over and forgotten.
§ MR. BIGGARquite agreed that it was desirable to get Amendments on the Paper; but in the progress of the Bill the Committee had an illustration of the difficulty of doing that, by the very action of the Government itself. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War (Colonel Stanley) undertook to supply them with Schedules something like a week ago, and he had always since excused himself from doing so on the ground that the continuous attention required by the Bill had prevented him from drawing them up. As to the speech made by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle (Mr. J. Cowen), that hon. Gentleman admitted he made the speech without knowing anything of the facts, for he explained he was not present when 1679 the matters to which he referred were taking place. It was, therefore, comparatively of little value; and, consequently, it was not to be wondered at that the statements were considerably inaccurate.
§ MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he rather hoped now, from the good-humour and amusing remarks, that the discussion had come to an end, and he did not think they need go into the question of what was obstruction. He thought he was somewhat to blame for the little difficulty that had arisen, and for having brought on the discussion, which arose from some remarks he made on the advantage of putting Amendments upon the Paper. The hon. and gallant Baronet opposite (Sir Walter B. Barttelot), thereupon, had appealed to him to state his experience as to the question at issue. He, of course, had had some experience, having had charge of Bills at various times; but he should be very sorry to refer to all the interruptions and obstacles—something like the present—which he met with in charge of them. He believed there was a general impression, on both sides of the House, especially below the Gangway, that Members of the front 0pposition Benches, and Members of the Government, had a common interest with regard to the conduct of Business. To some extent that was true; and, of course, he and his Friends could not help having some sympathy with their opponents, when they were placed in a similar position to that in which they had been. It was a fair thing that Amendments should be put on the Paper; but ho did not think that this suggestion as to their being put upon the Paper quite justified the very strong outburst—if he might so speak of it—of the hon. and gallant Member for West Sussex. Having once been in the West of Ireland ho went to an assembly, at which he was told there would be a row. Everything went off very quietly, and speaking to a friend of his about it his friend said—" I will take care to say something which shall bring it up." In like fashion, his hon. and gallant Friend, who had been sitting there all day, thought he could not let the Committee depart without rather strongly expressing his views. The Bill had now, however, been before the House so long— [Mr. PARNELL: Two months]—that he did not think any 1680 hon. Member who took an interest in it had any excuse if he had not learnt every clause, every word, every line of it, or did not know exactly what Amendment he wished to put with respect to it. The hon. Member for Meath said he had to spend last Sundey upon the Bill; but he (Mr. W. E. Forster) should have thought, from his ability, that long before that he would have found out all the Amendments he would wish to move. He did not know it was much in the interest of the Government saying that, for the result might be they would have a long list brought in on Monday. But they had now got to the stage of the discussion when they had a right to expect that Amendments brought forward should be put upon the Paper of the House, so that they might know what they were.
§ COLONEL ALEXANDERhoped that between that day and Monday the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War would re-consider the clause, for in it a very dangerous power was given to a soldier to arrest any person whom lie suspected of being a deserter; and, what was still more dangerous, a reward of 40s. was given him for doing so. He knew, in his own experience, that it led to collusion; and so strongly did he feel on the matter, that he should very strongly oppose it. That power did originally exist; but it was taken away some time ago, and left to the police constables, and he did not now think it should be restored.
MR. SULLIVANsaid, that the hon. and gallant Gentleman had, in well-chosen words, hit the point which he (Mr. Sullivan) informed the Committee was the serious one underlying the clause; but he rose to call attention to the fact that exactly 29 minutes had been wasted by the hon. and gallant Baronet (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) in consequence of the speech he had made, and the lecture which ho had administered to them, in a tone which did not at all become him. At 20 minutes past 11 the Chancellor of the Exchequer closed that wild scene, and things were then peaceable; but up rose the hon. and gallant Baronet. It was very hard, indeed, to please the hon. and gallant Baronet. He complained of his (Mr. Sullivan's) good-humour—of which he was a judge, indeed—and had gone so far as to say that his good-humour was only pretended. He did 1681 not know that the hon. and gallant Baronet was entitled to judge the genuineness of his good-humour, or his ill-humour; but, certainly, ill-humour ought not to be shown in that House, and that was what the hon. and gallant Baronet had done. The Leader of the House had an exceedingly embarrassing and unfair position forced upon him. Whenever lie attempted to take a wise course—such as that which had been suggested to him—up rose some hon. Member, like the hon. and gallant Baronet, to intimate that he was wanting in what they called firmness; and supposing he followed the fatal advice of his followers, The Times pitched into him next morning for lacking judgment. All that was a waste of time, and that was what had been done by the hon. and gallant Baronet. He complained, and charged, that he (Mr. Sullivan) was failing in his duty, because he had not put Amendments on the Notice Paper. Was it a complaint? Did the Government feel there were too few on the Notice Paper? He would remark that none had been put on by him, yet he had supported several Amendments in the Committee. And why? Because he had belonged to the class of Members who had other avocations to pursue. He had not the leisure of the hon. and gallant Baronet, who might in the evening of his life be able to study Amendments and put them on the Paper. But the hon. and gallant Baronet had not made a single Amendment, or even offered a single useful suggestion whatever.
§ COLONEL STANLEYsaid, as it was not desirable they should go on with the Business on Sunday, he hoped they would now consent to the Speaker being called into the Chair before 12 o'clock.
§ MR. O'DONNELLsaid, he listened attentively to the remarks of the Secretary of State for the Home Department with respect to the question of household suffrage, and if he continued to go on in that way he would go far towards conciliating that side of the House. He was very pleased with that, and also the Home Rule declaration of the right hon. Gentleman.
§ MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHYsaid, as a very new Member, he had listened with amusement, and, in the old-fashioned sense, with something like admiration, to the discussion of the last two hours. He should like to ask the Leader of the 1682 Government what he thought he had gained by refusing to report Progress two hours before? for it seemed to him that they had spent the whole of the time in discussing every conceivable question except this Bill. They had gone through all and every sort of information—every hon. Member who had spoken suggesting some different topic. They had raised questions of household suffrage; they had discussed questions of geography, geometry, and the niceties of the English language — whether it was in Order to say a man should be good-humoured — as implying that he was not good-humoured—and whether to impute the pretence of good humour was a breach of good manners. Then they had discussed the Constitutions of all the countries in the world—whether America had advanced; whether they, themselves, were going to have household suffrage for the counties as well as the boroughs; and they had ranged over a very encyclopedia of information. He did not wish to make any charge against any body of Members; but he did charge the whole Committee generally with something very like combined, though unintentional, obstruction; and he must say he did think Her Majesty's Government were especialy responsible for that, in not seing long ago that the time had far passed when there was any chance of carrying any more clauses through, and for not closing the debate and allowing the Committee to go home.
§ MR. PARNELLsaid, it had been a matter of the greatest possible concern to him that he had been unable to get his Amendments on the Paper. He might explain, that when it was first introduced he determined to take a very active part in its discussion. Subsequently, he determined to confine his attention to one or two points, such as flogging. He went over to Ireland, and remained there till just before Whitsuntide. On his return the Bill was in full swing, and he had since found it impossible to catch it up. Progress had been so continuous, from day to day, that he had found it exceedingly difficult to prepare his Amendments, and he had only done so last week by working all Sunday. He would promise to send copies of his Amendments by Monday to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War and to the Chairman, so that they might 1683 not be affected by their absence from the Paper on Monday; and he trusted that they would have sufficient time to meet the exigencies of the discussion from day to day.
§ MR. CALLANrepudiated any idea that he joined in obstruction, and suggested that it was now quite time for them to go home and prepare themselves for their duties on Sunday. He congratulated the Committee upon having created a precedent that had not been created since the days of Cromwell.
§ MR. BIGGARsaid, the speeches of the hon. and learned Member for Louth (Mr. Sullivan), and of the hon. and gallant Member for South Ayrshire (Colonel Alexander), showed how important was one of the clauses which the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War wished to push through.
§ Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; Committee counted, and 40 Members being found present,
MR. SULLIVANhoped it would be known that this attempt at obstruction came from one of the ablest and most prominent supporters of the Government, who filled an influential position inside and outside the House; who was in the confidence of the Government; and who, if it remained in Office much longer, might be a Member of it; yet that hon. Member had moved the count which, if it had succeeded, would have rendered the Bill a dropped Order.
§ House resumed.
§ Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday.
§ MR. CALLAN, in reference to the cats which had been placed in the House, said, that they did not now bear the endorsement which they bore when he inspected them on Thursday week.
§ MR. W. H. SMITHhad simply sub. stituted a fuller and more explicit label as that to which the hon. Gentleman referred would give no information to them House.
§ House adjourned at a quarter after Twelve o'clock, till Monday.