§ Order for Committee read.
§ Bill considered in Committee.
§ (In the Committee.)
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURhoped the Bill would not be proceeded with, for there were several Amendments on the Paper which would require to be debated at some length, and others not on the Paper would be moved. The House had been sitting from 4 o'clock until half-past 2 without intermission, and would meet again at 2 o'clock. It was rather too much to expect the House now to discuss a Bill of this kind, and he would move to report Progress.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. A. J. Balfour.)
§ MR. ORR-EWINGhoped the Motion would be agreed to, for this was a very important Motion, and he did not think it was fully understood by even the Scotch Members. The ostensible object of the Bill was to create a uniformity of terms of removal; but it had no effect on the leases of agricultural holdings. It entirely affected insolvent property, and would not establish uniformity in removal. He was as anxious for that to be effected as the hon. Member for Greenock (Mr. J. Stewart), but this Bill would not accomplish that object. The Bill would have serious effects, and he thought it ought to be discussed when there were more Scotch Members present, and there was more time. He would advise the hon. Member to defer the Bill till next year, when a Select Committee could be appointed to investigate the subject.
§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsuggested to the hon. Member for Greenock (Mr. J. Stewart) that, perhaps, it was not 1598 much use going on with the Bill now. There had been great complaints this Session of the difficulty of getting any Scotch Business done; but there were two Scotch Members—the hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. Orr-Ewing) and the hon. Member for Ayrshire (Colonel Alexander)—who were fatal to every Scotch Bill at every stage, and, therefore, he would not advise any Scotch Member to attempt to go on with any Scotch Bill.
§ MR. W. HOLMSsaid, that, notwithstanding the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman, he would ask the hon. Member for Hertfordshire (Mr. A. J. Balfour) to withdraw his Motion. The Bill was very much wanted in Scotland, and the only Member opposing it was the hon. Member for Dumbarton, and he had little sympathy from the Scotch Members generally. There was practically only one Amendment on the Paper, and he did not think the Bill ought to be delayed.
§ COLONEL ALEXANDERsaid, he hoped the Committee would accept the advice of the Home Secretary, as there were several Scotch Members who would have to come down again at 12 o'clock to attend Committees. He wished every Government to bring on Scotch Business, but at an earlier hour.
§ MR. J. STEWARTsaid, he regretted that he could not accept the Home Secretary's advice, and, considering all the circumstances of the case, he hoped the Committee would admit that, in justice to those who were interested, they ought to proceed.
§ MR. M'LAGANstated that the Bill had the sympathy of the Scotch Members generally. The Bill proposed to create four new statutory terms, which were very much wanted; and he had received only one communication in opposition to it.
§ MR. ORR-EWINGsaid, that not a single Petition had been received from any of the Scotch counties in favour of the change proposed by the Bill, while 10 counties had declared in favour of the Amendment of which he had given Notice.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, there was no agreement on the Bill; the debate had been sufficient to prove that. Scotch Members showed a great difference of opinion, and there was not the slightest proof of any enthusiasm for the Bill. It 1599 was exactly one of those measures that raised a great many points of controversy without exciting any ill feeling.
§ Question put.
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 15; Noes 39: Majority 24.—(Div. List, No. 320.)
§ MR. R. N. FOWLERsaid, it was now nearly 3 o'clock, and, after what had been said by the right hon. Gentleman opposite, he thought he was justified in moving that the Chairman do leave the Chair.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do now leave the Chair."—(Mr. R. N. Fowler.)
§ MR. O'KELLYbegged to support that Motion.
§ Question put.
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 12; Noes 40: Majority 28.—(Div. List, No. 321.)
§ COLONEL ALEXANDERsaid, he would not discuss the Bill. It was full of contentious matter, and that was not the time to consider it. He moved that the Chairman do report Progress.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Colonel Alexander.)
§ MR. W. HOLMSappealed to his hon. Friend not to force a third division, as there was practically only one Amendment on the Paper to the Bill.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURremarked, that hon. Members opposite must surely see the Bill could not be discussed at such an hour. The hon. Member for Paisley (Mr. W. Helms) said there was only one Amendment on the Paper. That was perfectly true; but he believed there was another Amendment which was not on the Paper. But the Amendments on the Paper proved that it was a Bill that gave rise to the greatest local difference of opinion, and it must be seen that there was no enthusiam in favour of the Bill.
§ MR. FRASER-MACKINTOSHsaid, he was sorry to see so much opposition. The Bill had already been discussed at great length for a Scottish question this Session, and the hon. Member fur Dumbarton (Mr. Orr-Ewing) had stated his 1600 views at considerable length this evening—views in which, judging from a correspondence lately published, he was at issue with a considerable number of his supporters in Dumbarton. The great majority of Scottish Members were in favour of going into Committee; and, seeing that the Bill might have been discussed in Committee, and almost passed in the time already occupied by this wrangle, he did not think they were carrying out the prevalent idea that Scottish Members were good men of business. Let the next division decide the difference of opinion, and then let the Committee proceed.
§ MR. ORR-EWINGsaid, as to the large proportion of his constituents being in favour of the Bill, his information was entirely the reverse. They had the same terms in Dumbarton that they had had for 200 years, and the same could be said of Ayrshire, Stirlingshire, Buteshire, Clackmannan, Rosshire—all the important agricultural counties. It was quite a mistake to say the feeling of Scotland was against his Amendment—the very reverse was the case—and he knew that the Government were so taken by surprise by the success of the hon. Member for Greenock (Mr. J. Stewart) in getting his Bill through on the previous day that they had not had time to put their Amendments into print. Certainly, the hon. Member had stolen a march upon him the day before, for he clearly understood that the Bill would not be taken without the opportunity of discussion; and, relying upon that, he was not actually in the House, though he was in the Library, when he was surprised to learn that the Speaker had left the Chair. It was a most unusual proceeding to attempt to proceed at 3 in the morning with a Bill to which the Government had important Amendments not yet printed.
§ MR. J. STEWARTsaid, he regretted to occupy time without practical result; but he was bound to say the statement just made was unwarranted. There was no understanding, except that no attempt should be made to pass the Bill without discussion. But when the discussion was raised the hon. Member refused to join in it, and made obstructive Motions, from which it might be inferred he feared to face the discussion, and was afraid his Amendment would be lost. He had not occupied the time 1601 of the Committee by attempting to answer the various statements made; but he might confidently say that if any hon. Member would only look at the Reports of Petitions, it would be seen that Scotland, with the greatest unanimity, was in favour of the Bill.
§ Question put.
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 12; Noes 39: Majority 27.—(Div. List, No. 322.)
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Preamble be postponed."
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do now leave the Chair."—(Mr. Warton.)
§ MR. FRASER-MACKINTOSHsaid, that he thought the feeling of the Committee had been sufficiently tested, and he would recommend that the Motion should be withdrawn, and then that the Motion to report Progress should be accepted.
§ Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; Committee counted, and 40 Members found being present,
§ Question put.
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 12; Noes 40: Majority 28.—(Div. List, No. 323.)
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Orr-Ewing.)
§ EARL PERCYsaid, it was obvious that the feeling against the Bill was strong. Though in numbers the minority was weak, yet it was a minority which represented the views of many who were absent.
MR. DICK-PEDDIEsaid, he trusted now that the Motion would be agreed to, for sufficient determination had been shown by the supporters of the Bill. If hon. Members had allowed the discussion to go on it would have by that time been concluded.
§ MR. ORR-EWING, said the Government Amendments had not been printed, and the Government had advised the hon. Member in charge of the Bill to give way to the Opposition, although they had not followed their own advice in practice, for they had gone into the 1602 Lobby against the Motion to report Progress.
§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, the hon. Member was rather mistaken in the view he took. The advice he (Sir William Harcourt) gave was, that when the Opposition was led by such past masters in the art of Obstruction as the noble Lord the Member for North Northumberland (Earl Percy) and the hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. A. J. Balfour), it was hopeless to attempt to go on with Business. These two hon. Members had outdone all that Irish Members had achieved against Bills. The noble Lord was an acknowledged master in the art. It was no use, having reached a certain point, going any further, and he hoped now that the hon. Member for Greenock would abandon the contest. The course he had taken in voting was to do his best, in common with the majority of the Committee, to transact Business.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, the right hon. Gentleman, as Leader on that occasion, and as on all occasions, never got up without adding bitterness to a debate he meant to calm, and prolonging a discussion he meant to shorten. The right hon. Gentleman said that the minority had entered on a course of persistent opposition of so obstinate a character that it exceeded all that had been done by Irish Members. Did he then think it would justify the clôture in favour of the Scotch Removal Bill? He had never yet heard such extreme language used towards opposition to a Bill of importance being discussed at an unreasonable hour. He was surprised that the hon. Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn), who in all previous Parliaments was a master of what the right hon. Gentleman called Obstruction to Business being taken at 2 o'clock in the morning, should have voted with the majority.
§ MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, he trusted that the hon. Member for Greenock would not take the advice given him. It was a luxury to sit up all night, especially when engaged in putting down Obstruction. Why not continue? The course adopted by hon. Members on that side of the House was, he thought, rather unreasonable. He might quote from a famous speech, which was directed against himself, amongst others, and say they had heard a repetition of speeches, without one idea or thought, 1603 a course calculated to degrade this noble Assembly. For his part, he was determined to save that noble Assembly from the degradation of obstructive tactics. There was the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir William Harcourt) who, as Leader of the House for the moment, and as one with whose aspiring character they were all familiar, he was sure would, for the enjoyment of Leadership, stop up for two or three hours yet. Then there was the noble Earl (Earl Percy) occupying his position on the Front Bench as Leader of the Opposition, and then the Chairman (Mr. Courtney) was enjoying the new experience of the easy dignity of the Chair. Why not proceed under such pleasant circumstances?
§ MR. DILLWYNsaid, though he had been ready to obstruct Business when brought on at the end of a late Sitting, it was always after arguments load been adduced against proceeding. Nothing of the kind had he heard on this occasion.
§ MR. FRASER-MACKINTOSHsaid, that more than 20 minutes before he had suggested to the hon. Member for Greenock to accede to a Motion to report Progress, and his hon. Friend was prepared to do so; but he had hardly sat down before the noble Earl (Earl Percy) moved a count, therefore on him rested the delay of the last half-hour. He hoped now that the Motion would be agreed to.
§ MR. J. STEWARTsaid, if he thought that hon. Members generally shared the pleasure in sitting up that the hon. Member for Galway (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) expressed, he would be ready to go on; but, as he did not think that was the case, he would consent to Progress being reported.
§ COLONEL ALEXANDERsaid, if the hon. Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn) had listened to the hon. Member for Dumbartonshire (Mr. Orr-Ewing), he would have known that in the course of his speech he was interrupted by the hon. Member rising to Order, and asking if it was in Order to discuss the merits of a Bill on a Motion to report Progress. Therefore, for that reason alone, had he with others been prevented from urging arguments against Bill.
§ EARL PERCYsaid, he must apologize if he stood in the way of a shortening of the discussion by the Motion he made to have the Committee counted. He 1604 thought, at the time, it was the shorter way of terminating a struggle which all agreed now should close.
§ Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.