HC Deb 09 May 1881 vol 261 cc123-31

ADJOURNED DEBATE.

Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on the Question [6th May], That the Adjourned Debate on the Question [2nd May], 'That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair for Committee on the Parliamentary Oaths (Motion for Bill)' be further Adjourned till Tuesday next, at Two of the clock."—(Lord Frederick Cavendish.)

Question again proposed, "That the Debate be further adjourned till Tuesday next, at Two of the clock."

Debate resumed.

MR. SPEAKER

It may be convenient to remind the House that the Question before it is—That this debate be further adjourned till to-morrow, at 2 o'clock.

MR. R. N. FOWLER

I beg to move that the debate be further adjourned till Thursday.

MR. SPEAKER

No Amendment to that effect can now be put, as the House has already affirmed the proposition that the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question.

SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOT

said, he wished to remind the House that the Prime Minister had promised to state the course he intended to pursue when the Motion was brought on that evening, and had also stated that he should like a division to be taken. He (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) thought the best course the House could pursue would be to proceed, as soon as possible, to that division. He should, to enable them to do so, conclude by moving the adjournment of the debate, and on these particular and distinct grounds. The House had been sitting since the 6th of January, and the right hon. Gentleman had absorbed, under the necessities of the case, and in the interest of the country as he had stated, the whole of the Private Members' nights. The Motion was one which might well be made on some future day without interfering with anything, and on which there might be a far better opportunity of considering and discussing when there was time on a Government night, and then it might be right, and fair, and just for the Government to press forward the question. But it was not right, or fair, or just—it was unjust and unfair that the right hon. Gentleman should take away private Members' days in the way now proposed. It must be remembered also that if the House granted a Day Sitting to-morrow, they might have another on Friday, and there would be nothing to prevent Day Sittings until this or any other Bill was brought in and passed. He would move that the debate should be adjourned.

MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCK

said, he would second the Motion, in order to place before the House some facts to show that to grant this Morning Sitting would be to establish a dangerous precedent in regard to the rights of private Members. It would, he said, be in the recollection of the right hon. Gentleman that during the last Liberal Administration it was his (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck's) duty to protest against the encroachments which the right hon. Gentleman made on the privileges of private Members, and especially with regard to the practice, then first established, of appointing Morning Sittings in the early part of the Session. His remonstrances, then, and those of his Friends, were of little avail; but the Government of Lord Beaconsfield adopted a fairer and more equitable course. To prove that he need go no further back than 1876, when, on the 8th of June, and on a similar occasion, Lord Beaconsfield laid down the principle upon which, in his judgment, Morning Sittings ought to be appointed. He said Morning Sittings were not a procedure to which he would ever have recourse except towards that part of the year when the pressure of Public Business was very great. Accordingly, in that year, the regular Morning Sittings commenced upon the above date, and in 1877 were first appointed for Tuesdays only, commencing on June 5. In the following year there were no regular Morning Sittings until June 18, and in 1879 the first regular Morning Sitting was on the 27th of May. The principle clearly was that no Morning Sittings should be held before the commencement of June, or thereabouts, except with the consent of, and for the convenience of, the House. The precedent mentioned on a former occasion by the noble Lord the Secretary of State for India of a Morning Sitting held in 1879, on the 6th of May, by the late Government, was wholly inapplicable to the present case, for it would be seen by a reference to Hansard that that Morning Sitting on the 6th of May was held at the request of Members of the House, in order that the House might proceed with the Valuation Bill. The hon. Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn) took objection to the proposal to have that Morning Sitting, and twice gave Notice of opposition; but when the time came he did not oppose the Motion, and the debate was proceeded with at a Morning Sitting with the unanimous consent of the House. A Morning Sitting was held on the 27th of May merely for the convenience of the House before the Easter Holidays, and regular Morning Sittings were not resumed till the 10th of June. The practice of not holding Morning Sittings before June was in accordance with the old practice of the House when Morning Sittings commenced at 12 o'clock; and it was clear from the precedents he had cited that Morning Sittings, early in the Session, ought not to be appointed except with the consent of the House—which, in this case, was clearly not given. For the convenience and information of hon. Gentlemen who called themselves independent, and who sat below the Gangway on the other side of the House, ho had thought it desirable to make them acquainted with these facts; and he thought the right hon. Gentleman would gain a great point if he could so govern them as to obtain their support to some Motions he had proposed, but to which they were extremely adverse. It would also be well if they would come down to the House when encroachments were to be made on the rights of private Members, and would oppose a Motion which, if the votes of the House could be taken, as he thought they ought to be taken, by ballot, he believed would be rejected. Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned,"—(Sir Walter B. Barttelot.)

MR. GLADSTONE

Sir, at this time of the night the most rational course would be, if we are to have a division, to go straight to that division; but the right hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck) thought he had matter to communicate to the House which was so important and so accurate that he could not possibly withhold it. The right hon. and learned Gentleman says there was once a Government in this country—at a period so deplorable that he cannot refer to it without pain—when there was in operation a conspiracy against the rights of private Members, but that that guilty Cabinet was dismissed from Office, and another Government came in; and then the right hon. and learned Gentleman, although he had in vain struggled in former times to defend the rights of the House, found he had a different set of people to deal with. [Mr. CAVENDISH BENTINCK: I never said anything of the sort.] I am not endeavouring to cite the words of the right hon. and learned Gentleman. It would be perfectly in vain for me to try to do so; they are far beyond my powers. It will be seen that it is the spirit of his speech to which I am confining myself. With this new Government the principles of the right hon. and learned Gentleman prevailed; and then, with some insignificant exceptions which are hardly worth notice, all Morning Sittings were adjourned, or not allowed until late in May, or until the month of June. That is the upshot of the statement of the right hon. and learned Gentleman; and I must admit that, so far as I can judge, during the time of the late Government the right hon. and learned Gentleman had ample leisure for informing himself on this matter, although he appeared to be generally oppressed by the duties of Office. But I wish simply on this occasion, without further discussion, to test the statement of the right hon. and learned Gentlemen, and show, with reference to the present circumstances, what were the actual dates, extracted from the Records, of this House, when Morning Sittings commenced, as he has told us, when he completely succeeded in defending the rights of private Members. I will take, first, the year 1875, when the first Morning Sitting was on the 16th of March. There was another Morning Sitting on the 13th of April, and then they became usual. In 1877 the first Morning Sitting was on the 27th of March; in 1878, the first Morning Sitting was on the 19th of March, and the second and third Morning Sittings in that year were of particular interest in connection with the part which the right hon. and learned Gentleman has taken on this peculiar question. On the 26th and the 29th of March there were Morning Sittings on the Mutiny Bill, in which the right hon. and learned Gentleman was specially interested. After that the right hon. and learned Gentleman thinks he has made an accurate statement to this House. I make no complaint of those Morning Sittings. My own opinion is that, as far as Morning Sittings go as a plan, they ought not to be introduced at an early date. This seems to be a special ground, at all events, on which to try the judgment of the House. When that judgment has been taken there will be time for further discussion; but it will be remembered that a measure to try the judgment of the House is no part of the policy of the Government. It is simply a proposal made by the Government with a view to providing for a dilemma that has arisen out of a vote which the Government resisted. The Government felt it to be their duty, notwithstanding, to render any assistance they could, and they therefore made this proposal. We are certainly desirous to have the judgment of the House upon that proposal; but before they can have that judgment they must have the power of taking the vote of the House, and the power of making a proposal. The object of the Morning Sitting which is now asked for is to enable them to make that proposal, and the preliminary step to making that proposal is that which is now before the House.

MR. NEWDEGATE

said, that the Prime Minister had charged the Opposition with having placed the House in a dilemma; but the fact was that the dilemma had arisen on account of the very peculiar appearance of Mr. Bradlaugh at the Table, for which the Ministerial Party were accountable. No one could doubt that the dilemma of which the right hon. Gentleman spoke had been created by those by whom Mr. Bradlaugh had been supported, of whom the leaders were Her Majesty's Ministers. He hoped that hon. Gentlemen on that (the Opposition) side of the House would excuse so humble a Member of the House as himself (Mr. Newdegate) for distinctly repudiating, on the part of the Opposition, any responsibility for the present dilemma. The right hon. Gentleman claimed for his attempt to establish Morning Sittings early in the Session the precedents established by the late Government. But, if his memory did not betray him, he (Mr. Newdegate) thought that the right hon. Gentleman had deemed it to be his duty to repudiate the entire conduct of the late Adminis- tration. He (Mr. Newdegate) himself, indeed, regarded the conduct of the late Government as reprehensible in not having shown more promptitude and firmness in dealing with obstruction, and it was that systematic obstruction of the Business of the House which had in the last Parliament rendered early Morning Sittings necessary. He held, then, that the right hon. Gentleman was basing his conduct upon precedents which he had repudiated and condemned at meetings throughout the country, as well as in that House, while he pleaded nothing in justification for this change of opinion on his part. The right hon. Gentleman had charged the late Government with adopting a course which endangered the independence of Parliament, and yet now proposed to pursue the same course himself; and he (Mr. Newdegate) contended that the precedents which the right hon. Gentleman had cited in favour of the course he proposed for the virtual and practical coercion of the House were vitiated by his own often-repeated previous statements. Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes 182; Noes 202: Majority 20.—(Div. List, No. 199.)

Main Question again proposed.

MR. RITCHIE

said, he wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister whether, after such an expression of opinion of the House, he intended to persist with the Motion that the House should meet that day at 2 o'clock? He desired to point out to the House that the division had been taken especially at the instance of the Prime Minister, who rather went out of his way in order to attach significance to the division, and led the House to believe that the whole of his forces would be marshalled in the support of the Government.

MR. SPEAKER

I must point out to the hon. Member that as he has already addressed the House on this Amendment, he has exhausted his right of speaking.

MR. GORST

said, he had not yet exhausted his right, and therefore he thought he was entitled, seeing that so large a minority had voted, to ask a question of the Prime Minister on the subject of the Motion before the House. The principle which had always guided the House in taking Morning Sittings was that there should be a general assent to them. There was, so far as he knew, no instance in which Morning Sittings had been forced upon the House by a small majority against the general wish of the House. What he wished to ask the Prime Minister—and it was a question which he should like to have answered before any further proceeding was taken—was whether, as so large a proportion of the House was opposed to a Morning Sitting that day, he still intended to persevere with the Motion for a Morning Sitting?

MR. GLADSTONE

Personally, I should feel inclined to state the matter rather differently from the hon. and learned Gentleman. He says that there has been, so far as he knows, no taking of a Morning Sitting except with the general assent of the House. What I should say would be that, as far as I know, so far as Morning Sittings are concerned, a general disposition to accede to the desire expressed by the Government. ["No, no!"] That has certainly been my experience; but I do not wish to make it a matter of contention. So far as the division which has just taken place is concerned, the number of those who voted for a Morning Sitting is larger than the number who voted against it. On the other hand, I presume that hon. Members who voted with the minority are quite prepared to move other Motions for adjournment. Therefore, if I were to persevere with the Main Question that this debate be adjourned until a Morning Sitting this day, I certainly should do so in the conviction that some hon. Gentleman would move the adjournment of the debate, and that we should have a good chance of a Morning Sitting, although it would be a Morning Sitting continuous from now until 2 o'clock to-morrow. Under these circumstances, I may say that I do not propose to take a Morning Sitting, but we will take time to ruminate on the full significance of the division which has taken place. I may, however, say to the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ritchie), that he is quite wrong in his supposition that there has been any marshalling of the forces of the Government. There has been nothing of the kind. We have simply taken this division out he Notice which was previously given. The hon Mem- ber may take the fact for what it is worth; but I may say that, having given up the Morning Sitting to-morrow, I shall take an early opportunity of reverting to the subject.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Debate on Question [2nd May], "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," further adjourned till To-morrow.