THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONThe right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition (Sir Stafford Northcote) put a Question to me yesterday in reference to a Resolution passed in this House at the Sitting of the 25th and 26th of January, which gave precedence to the Bill for the Protection of Person and Property in Ireland and the Peace Preservation Bill over all other Notices of Motion and Orders of the Day; and he inquired whether the Government, having announced their intention of asking the House to go into Committee of Supply on Monday, it was intended to make a Motion in reference to that Resolution in order to sot it aside. I trust that it will be possible for my right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Treasury to be in his place on Monday, and to make the Statement he has promised in reference to Public Business generally; but I am sorry to say that it is not certain that that will be the case, and, if so, I will endeavour, to the best of my ability, to state on that occasion the intentions of the Government in regard to Business. With reference, however, to the particular Question put by the right hon. Gentleman, I am prepared to state now that my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary for Ireland will propose to-night to postpone the introduction of the Peace Preservation Bill until Tuesday. Under these circumstances, the Resolution of the 25th of January will not technically have any operation on Monday, because a Notice of Motion which is not upon the Paper 1743 cannot have precedence of other Notices or Orders. But we quite admit that if the Government should resolve to post-pone the introduction of the Peace Preservation Bill for any considerable time, it would only be respectful to the House that it should be consulted before the Resolution of January 25 should be allowed to become practically inoperative. I do not wish, and I think the House will not desire, that I should anticipate the statement which I trust my right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Treasury may be able to mate on Monday with regard to the intentions of the Government as to the Peace Preservation Bill, the Land Bill, and the Business of the Government generally. I am, however, prepared to say, in reply to the Question put to me by the right hon. Gentleman opposite, that in such a contingency as that to which I have adverted—namely, the postponement for any considerable time of the introduction of the Peace Preservation Bill, my right hon. Friend will make a Motion at a convenient time to enable the House to discuss the Resolution of January 25 and 26.
§ SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEI wish, Sir, with your permission, to put a Question to you upon a point of Order, arising out of the answer just given by the noble Lord. As I understand it, the House, having given precedence to the introduction of this measure for the Preservation of Peace in Ireland, has given up both Government nights and private Members' nights for precedence to that particular measure. I wish to know whether, if the Government waive that precedence on Monday night, they will have the power to resume the precedence for this measure on subsequent private Members' nights over the Business of private Members, or whether private Members, who gave up their privileges on January 25 in order to facilitate the progress of a Bill which was represented to be of great urgency, will find their rights revived, when the Government consider that the Business is not of sufficient urgency to require that they should have precedence over all other Business? In other words, what I ask is—Whether the Government will be able to play fast and loose with this Resolution by taking advantage of it on private Members' nights and disregarding it on Government nights?
§ MR. ONSLOWI also desire to ask you, Sir, whether, when the right hon. Gentleman brings on his Motion, at what the noble Lord calls a reasonable hour, it will not be left in your hands to decide what shall be a reasonable hour; and whether it will not also be in your power to close the debate, in order to give Her Majesty's Government an opportunity of making the Motion; and whether, if Notice is given of the Motion, it can come on after half-past 12 as an unopposed Motion?
§ MR. SPEAKERWhat Motion?
§ MR. ONSLOWThe Motion that the introduction of the Peace Preservation Bill be postponed until Tuesday.
§ MR. SPEAKERI may remind the House that the Resolution in reference to the two Bills in question is in these terms—
That the introduction and the several stages of the Protection of Person and Property (Ireland) Bill and the Peace Preservation (Ireland) Pill have precedence of all Orders of the Day and Notices of Motion, from day to day, until the House shall otherwise order.I apprehend that the qualification in those words of the Resolution— "until the House shall otherwise order" — clearly leaves it with the House, if it thinks proper, to postpone the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant to a future day. But it is my duty, until the House has thought proper to set aside altogether, or to discharge, the Order of the 25th of January, to place that Motion at the head of the list for consideration each day until that Motion is disposed of. In regard to the Question of the hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Onslow) I have to say that, assuming urgency to be declared, no doubt the debate of any Motion before the House—supposing urgency to apply to it—would be considered under the Rule of Urgency; but I apprehend that a Motion of the character now indicated would not come under the Rule of Urgency.
MR. J. COWENsaid, in reference to the ruling of the Speaker, that he should like to know, if the Government proposed to postpone the consideration of the Arms Bill, whether a discussion on the point could be raised? The House had placed its entire time at their disposal for a specific purpose, and that purpose was to be gone forward with from day to day. If the Government 1745 abandoned the purpose, and on further consideration found that the measures declared urgent were not urgent, he wanted to know when they proposed, to alter their plans, whether the House would be allowed an opportunity of reviewing the whole subject, as well as of passing judgment on the course the Ministry intended to follow?
§ MR. SPEAKERI apprehend that it could be postponed until a future day, because the terms of the Resolution are "until the House shall otherwise order." I infer from that that the House has power to postpone it if it thinks proper; but it is my duty, so long as it stands upon the Paper, to give it precedence over every other Business of the House.
§ LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLI wish to ask a Question upon a point of Order in regard to which I find that some misapprehension exists on the part of some hon. Members. I want to know whether, in the event of the third reading of the Protection of Person and Property (Ireland) Bill, it is your intention to declare that the state of Public Business is no longer urgent?
§ MR. SPEAKERAssuming that the Bill is read a third time to-night, I should consider it my duty on Monday next, at the meeting of the House, to declare the state of Public Business to be no longer urgent.
§ MR. CHAPLINIn the event of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant not proceeding with the Arms Bill, can any other Business be taken, if objection is raised, until the Order giving precedence to the Arms Bill is discharged?
§ MR. SPEAKERIf the House thinks proper to postpone the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman to a future day, it will, of course, be open to the House to agree to the proposition; and, in the meantime, the House will proceed with the Business appointed for the day, and if the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary is not set down for that day, it cannot be proceeded with.
§ MR. CHAPLINThen, Sir, I bog to give Notice that, in the event of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary moving to postpone that Motion, I shall oppose it.
§ MR. T. D. SULLIVANI wish to ask you, Sir, whether, when you call on hon. Members who challenge your de- 1746 cision to stand up in their places, the fact should not be notified in the usual way by ringing the bell, so as to afford hon. Members a few minutes' time to enter the House and take their places.
§ MR. SPEAKERThe object of that Rule was that the House should be saved the trouble of a division in the event of only a small minority supporting a particular view. If the bell were rung and Members were summoned to their places that object would be defeated.
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONI am not quite sure whether I made myself quite clear in a statement which I made upon this matter yesterday. I said then that it was very necessary that some progress should shortly be made in Supply, and that it was specially necessary that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War (Mr. Childers) should, as early as possible, make the important Statement he has to make on the Army Estimates. In endeavouring to explain to-day that, supposing the Government possess, as I believe it does possess, the power of temporarily suspending the operation of the Resolution of January 25, by postponing the Motion of my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary, for the introduction of the Arms Bill until Tuesday, I intended to assure the House that the Government had no intention of abusing that technical liberty by postponing the Motion for any considerable time. But if, on Monday, the Government decide to postpone the introduction of the Bill for any considerable time, they will consider themselves bound, in due respect to the House, to give the House an opportunity, as soon as possible, and at a convenient hour, of re-considering the Resolution which was arrived at on the 25th of January.
§ MR. SCLATER-BOOTHWe understand that; but what I think the House does not understand is whether the noble Lord claims as a right to postpone the Motion for the introduction of the Arms Bill from to-night till Tuesday, or whether he will take the sense of the House on the subject?
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONI presume that the matter will be settled in the same way as similar questions are always settled. When the Notice of my right hon. Friend is reached, my right hon. Friend will name a day, to which it will be postponed, as is always 1747 done in similar cases, and it would then be for the House to say whether it assents to that day or not.
§ MR. SPEAKERIt appears to mo that it is important to clear up a point which has been raised by the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin). The hon. Member gave Notice that when the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant proposes to postpone his Motion until a future day—
§ MR. CHAPLINUntil Tuesday.
§ MR. SPEAKERThat he would object to that Motion. Now, I apprehend that an objection of that kind cannot be made, because the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant stands in the same category as all ordinary Motions, and can be postponed from time to time without any Amendment in regard to the postponement. The only difference between this and all other Motions is that by a Resolution of this House precedence is given to it.
§ SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEThe point upon which the House appears to be anxious is that some assurance should be given by the noble Lord as to the mode in which the Government mean to exercise the remarkable privilege given to them by the Resolution of the 25th of January. According to the ordinary practice, if the Chief Secretary gives Notice to introduce the Arms Bill on Tuesday next, which it seems he has a perfect right to do, it would stand below the other Notices on the Paper, the Notices, for instance, of the hon. Member for Glasgow, and other hon. Members who have Notices. But as things are now, the Notice of the Government would not stand below, but above, those of private Members, and would take precedence over those of private Members on that night by virtue of the arrangement made on the 25th of January, when the House made a concession to the Government on the understanding that the matter was so important that all other questions should give way. If the House deliberately makes a different arrangement for a different purpose, cadit question; but if the Government claim the right to be able to get precedence whenever they choose, and dispense with it whenever they choose, and only exercise it by taking away the nights set apart for private Members, 1748 and not using their privilege on Government nights, then the House will have a right to complain that the spirit of the Resolution of the 25th of January has been broken. I do not for a moment mean to imply that the Government have any such intention.
§ SIR JOHN R. MOWBRAYI wish to ask the noble Marquess distinctly if the sense of the House is to be asked tonight to the postponement of the Motion of the Chief Secretary for the introduction of the Arms Bill, or do the Government claim to postpone it themselves by right? If the House is not to be asked to assent to the postponement of the Motion from to-night until Tuesday, how does he reconcile that with the assurance given to the House to-night that it would be consulted when any departure from the Rule of Urgency was to be made?
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONI understand that the assent of the House is not necessary to the postponement of the Notice of my right hon. Friend. I understand you to have ruled, Sir, that it is within the power of my right hon. Friend, whenever that Notice is called, to postpone it. My right hon. Friend proposes to postpone the Motion which stands in his name to-night until Tuesday. I have already stated the reason why he desires to take that course—namely, because the Government are anxious to go into Committee of Supply on Monday. But I think it quite necessary to say that the Government claim no such right as that indicated by the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir Stafford Northcote) to take possession of private Members' nights for the purpose of prosecuting their own measures, and without consulting the House, unless they are also prepared to sacrifice their own time. I have asked the House to agree to the arrangement I have suggested, in order to enable my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War to make a statement upon the Army Estimates. If the Arms Bill were postponed beyond Tuesday, the Government would consider it their duty to consult the House.
§ SIR JOHN R. MOWBRAYMay I be allowed, after what has fallen from the noble Marquess, and with all respect to you, Mr. Speaker, to put a Question, as to the proper interpretation of your ruling. Am I to understand that the 1749 assent of the House is not to be asked for the postponement of the Motion? In the event of that being the case, will it be possible for you, Sir, to put that Motion otherwise than as the first Order of the Day, in pursuance of the Resolution of the 25th of January, which you read just now, and which gives precedence to it over all other Business?
§ MR. SPEAKERThe right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant can postpone his Motion, as all other Motions are postponed, without taking the sense of the House upon the matter. I have to say, further, that upon whatever day that Motion is appointed it will stand as the first Business upon the Paper.
§ MR. CHAPLINI still wish, Sir, with great respect and for my own guidance, to ask your opinion on this point of Order. The House having ordered the Arms Bill to have precedence over every other Business, it is my intention, as long as that Order remains in force, to object to any other Business being taken before it. I wish to ask your opinion, if it is proposed to take any other Business before the Arms Bill, and if I or any other Member rise in my place to object to its being taken, on the ground that it would be contrary to the Order of the 25th of January, it would be regular to proceed with that other Business?
§ MR. SPEAKERIt would not be in Order. I assume that the House has appointed Supply as the first Order of the Day for Monday next, and, of course, the House can deal with that Order of the Day when it is called on.
§ LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLWhen the Government propose to fix Supply for Monday, will it be competent to take the sense of the House upon that proposition, and to raise a discussion? I wish, Sir, to have your opinion upon that point.
§ MR. SPEAKERWhen the Motion for Supply is put, of course that Motion, as the House knows perfectly well, will be open to Amendment.
§ MR. MONTAGUE GUESTIf Supply is taken before the Arms Bill, when the Arms Bill comes on will urgency be still in force?
§ MR. SPEAKERIf I understand the Question of the hon. Member for Wareham (Mr. Guest) correctly, it is this—he wishes to know whether Supply can 1750 come on, notwithstanding the Resolution of the 25th of January. I apprehend that Supply can come on, notwithstanding that Resolution.
§ MR. W. H. SMITHThe House, on the 25th of January, ordered—
That the introduction and the several stages of the Protection of Person and Property (Ireland) Bill and the Peace Preservation (Ireland) Bill have precedence of all Orders of the Day and Notices of Motion from day to day, until the House shall otherwise order.Do I understand you, Sir, to say that it is in the power of the Government, if they think fit, to disregard that Order, so far as Supply on Monday is concerned? I think it is most desirable that we should have a clear ruling on the subject.
§ MR. SPEAKERI do not understand that it would disregard the Order, for the Resolution says "until the House shall otherwise order."
§ MR. W. H. SMITHWith great respect, I wish to remark that you have already ruled, Sir, that it is not open to the House to object to the postponement of the Notice of Motion when made by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant. The House, therefore, will not be consulted, and will make no Order on the postponement of the introduction of the measure. The House has ordered that the Peace Preservation (Ireland) Bill shall be introduced and proceeded with. The House has further ordered that the introduction of the Bill shall have precedence over all Orders of the Day, and Notices of Motion; and I understand you, Sir, to say now, that it is in the power of the right hon. Gentleman to disregard that Order of the House, and to allow 24 hours and a Sitting of the House to elapse before he takes advantage of the opportunity that is open to him if he thinks fit to use it, and that it is in the power of the Government to appoint other Business for that Sitting.
§ SIR JOSEPH M'KENNABefore you settle that Question, Sir, I wish to put another to you in this form. Does not the mere setting down of Supply and giving it precedence over a measure previously declared urgent altogether do away with the existence of urgency? And must not Notice be given, and the Motion carried by a majority of three to one, in the prescribed form, before urgency can be set up again?
§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTI wish to put this Question, Sir, to you. The hon. Member who has just sat clown seems to me to have mixed up two things altogether different—namely, the question of urgency and the question of this Rule. They are two totally distinct matters; and. I wish to ask whether, in point of fact, the matter has not been determined already by the circumstance that the debate upon Judicial Appointments was interposed between what is generally called the Habeas Corpus Act Suspension Bill and what is usually termed the Arms Bill? [An hon. MEMBER: No, no.] I am not asking the hon. Member, but I am asking Mr. Speaker. I was asking you, Sir, whether or not the House has not interposed between these two Bills already, without any special Order, a debate upon an entirely different matter—namely Judicial Appointments. If that be so, does it not answer the Question put to you, Sir, by hon. Members, whether that Order did not lay down that whenever the Habeas Corpus Act Suspension Bill came to an end the Arms Bill must necessarily follow, or else the Order as to urgency would terminate? Does not the fact that the House has already interposed a debate upon a different subject between these two Bills, without objection being raised, abrogate the Rule?
§ SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSI must remind the right hon. Gentleman that what was done in regard to the discussion upon Judicial Appointments was done by the leave of the House, by a special arrangement between the Prime Minister and myself, to allow Progress to be reported upon the Protection of Person and Property (Ireland) Bill, for the express purpose of considering the question of Judicial Appointments. Progress was reported in Committee upon the Protection of Person and Property Bill for the express purpose of taking the other debate.
§ MR. BERESFORD HOPEThere is one Question, Sir, upon which I wish to have your ruling, in order to remove some of the misapprehension which appears to prevail in the House. The point upon which I ask for your ruling is, whether the Resolution of the 25th of January does not comprehend two things—one, the Resolution of the House giving priority to two-certain specific questions, and the other the going on with such 1752 certain Business de die in diem; and whether the two do not correspond with each other, or are intended to correspond with each other, so that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant cannot put off the Arms Bill, as one of those specific questions, until Tuesday, and thereby break the action of the House from clay to day, without the antecedent permission of the House to do so? I wish to know whether by putting it off until Tuesday the Government are not thereby breaking the Resolution to proceed with those questions de die in diem, and setting aside the antecedent necessity of having a Resolution of the House for such relaxation?
§ MR. GIBSONI wish, by one short Question, to test the validity of the contention. If the Minister can by his ipse dixit postpone the Arms Bill until Tuesday, could he postpone it until the 1st of May, and would the Order for its priority be suspended during the interval, and then revive in all its vigour?
§ MR. SPEAKERIn answer to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, I have to say that I apprehend it is open to the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant to postpone his Motion until Tuesday, or any other day he may think fit. I have also to say that I apprehend this discussion would not have arisen if the right hon. Gentleman had postponed his Motion till Monday next. What would have happened in that case would have been this—that Motion, by my direction, would be placed at the head of the Orders of the Lay, and would be the first called on. But the House cannot compel any hon. Member to proceed with a Motion, and it would have been open to the right hon. Gentleman to postpone it until a future day. This discussion has arisen in consequence of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary proposing to postpone his Motion till Tuesday next. If he had postponed it until Monday next, there would have been no difficulty in the matter.
§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORMay I ask the noble Lord, Whether the Government propose to take any Votes in Supply on Monday night, or whether the House is only to go into Committee, to enable the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War to make his Statement?
§ MR. CHILDERSI think I ought to answer that Question. What I propose to do on Monday, if I am able to make my Statement in Committee, is not to take any money Vote whatever, but to give the House ample time to consider the very important Statement which it will be my duty to make. I shall, however, ask the House to allow me to take the Vote for men, because I have reason to believe there will be no material discussion upon it; and it is most important that the Mutiny Bill should be introduced in a few days. But as far as regards the Votes for money, and the question of organization, I should not think of taking any Vote on Monday next.
§ MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHYWhen the Chief Secretary moves the postponement of his Motion, will it be in the power of any hon. Member to discuss the question?
§ MR. SPEAKERIf the Motion is not made it cannot be discussed.
§ MR. WARTONMay I point out that the question whether the Government can or cannot in any way alter or evade the Rule of the 25th of January depends on one single word in the Resolution, and upon a syllable in that word? The word is not "unless" the House shall otherwise Order, but "until" the House shall otherwise Order.
§ MR. RITCHIEI understand you, Sir, to have said that the right hon. Gentleman may place his Motion on the Paper for Monday. I want to ask, Whether, if the Motion appeared on the Paper for Monday, and had been placed there, in accordance with the Order of the House, as the first Business to be taken, the right hon. Gentleman could have postponed it without the sanction of the House?
§ MR. SPEAKERThe House cannot compel an hon. Member to proceed with a Motion.
§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORI beg to give Notice that when the Vote for men is proposed I will move a reduction of 5,000 in the number of men.
§ MR. O'DONNELLI wish to give Notice that on the Motion for going into Committee of Supply I will call attention to the refusal, by Irish magistrates, to grant bail for bailable offences, and will move a Resolution.
§ MR. ANDERSONMay I ask, Mr. Speaker, if, in the event of Her Ma- 1754 jesty's Government adopting your suggestion, and placing the Notice upon the Paper for Monday, thus giving it precedence of all the Orders of the Day, it would not become a dropped Motion, which could not be restored to the Paper, except with the consent of the House, in the event of the Government not proceeding with it on Monday?
§ MR. J. R. YORKEI wish to ask, Sir, Whether, if the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary fixes his Motion for Monday, it will have precedence of all other Business?
§ MR. SPEAKERIf the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant thought proper to place his Motion for Monday next it would take precedence of all other Business; but, as I have already stated, the House cannot compel an hon. Member to proceed with a Motion. A Motion is not in the same category as an Order of the Day. In regard to an Order of the Day any hon. Member can move it; but in the case of a Motion the House cannot compel the hon. Member who gives Notice of it to proceed with it, but he can postpone it if he chooses.