MR. GLADSTONEI rise, Sir, for the purpose of fulfilling an engagement, and to state one or two points that bear on the future course of Business, and to throw light upon it for the guidance of the House, as far as it is in the power of the Government to give explanations. In the first place, it is our intention to propose on Thursday that this House should adjourn till Tuesday, October 24, and a similar proposal will, I believe, be made in the House of Lords. I propose to make that Motion on Thursday next, in anticipation that the Adjournment will be from Friday. There are precedents for such a proceeding, and we propose to make the Motion on 1696 Thursday, for fear any accident might happen in consequence of the non-attendance of a sufficient quota of Members on Friday. We propose to ask that when the House meets on the 24th of October, it shall address itself to the great question of Procedure; and to deal with that question is, in point of fact, the object, and, so far as we can foresee, the sole object, for which we ask the House to meet at that particular season of the year. We shall, therefore, propose when that time comes that the question of Procedure do take precedence of all other subjects on the days when it is set down upon the Orders of the Day, and that Motion will be made with the intention of setting it down de die in diem. But we shall not express that it shall be de die in diem; because, at any time, some special exigency of public affairs might arise, which might require the House for a greater or less time to divert its attention to some other subject; but it will be distinctly with the intention of taking it from day to day, so far as the public interests will permit, and so far as we know at present. I may say that it is desirable, in conformity with precedent, to ask the House to meet to-morrow at 3 o'clock, so as to render more certain the meeting of a House, as if after 4 the House is not made up, the House for the day is lost. Then, with regard to the question of Procedure, I will refer to the inquiry which has been addressed to me on one or more occasions, and which I promised to answer before we came to the time for Adjournment, and that is, whether we adhere to the intention we at one time signified, although it never was made publicly known, to accept upon certain conditions, and with a special view, the Amendment to the 1st Resolution, of which Notice was given in the name of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the junior Member for Dublin University (Mr. Gibson). I had better state to the House, rather more particularly than they are at present informed, what actually took place. On the afternoon of the 6th May I addressed a note to the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition (Sir Stafford North-cote), in which I referred to the Notice of Motion given by the junior Member for the University of Dublin, and I said, adverting to various circumstances, and especially to the character and spirit, 1697 and particularly to the length of the debates thus far on the 1st Resolution of Procedure—
That the Government were prepared, without having modified their own views, to accept the Amendment of which Notice had been given by Mr. Gibson, with the intention of allowing the Resolution thus altered to be fairly tested by experience, provided that they were assured in the House"—for no reply was asked from the right hon. Gentleman by letter—"at the proper time"—that would have been on the following Monday, the 8th—"that the Leader of the Opposition would, on that footing, use his influence to expedite the action of the House in respect of Procedure, and would enter on the consideration of the remaining Resolutions in what might be termed a spirit of co-operation,agreeably to a disposition shown somewhat to favour the other Resolutions in the communication I had received at the beginning of the Session from the right hon. Baronet. That proposal, as the House will observe by referring to the date, was cut off by the great calamity which occurred in the Phœnix Park in Dublin. That altered altogether the position of Business in the House of Commons for the moment, and, in consequence, this was never made known to the House, and no occasion occurred of going forward with the discussion on the subject of Procedure, so that the matter remained in abeyance. Now, coming to the time when we have again to consider the bringing up of the question of Procedure, it has again been our duty to consider it, and it is necessary for me to explain that, in the first place, in May the view of the Government was this— We were well aware that it would be necessary for us after a short time to proceed to deal with Irish legislation; but we thought, at that period of the year, that if we could secure expeditious proceeding in regard to Procedure it was quite possible we might still have some fruit in the way of legislation from the Session of this year. I need not say these expectations have been entirely disappointed, and the Session has been a Session of utter ruin and discomfiture, with some very small and slight exceptions indeed. I mean that in respect of legislation proposed by the Government it has been a Session of ruin and discomfiture such as has never before occurred; and, consequently, the reason which induced me on the part of the Government to make known that intention to the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir Stafford Northcote), and it 1698 would have induced me on Monday the 8th, had the situation of Business not been altered, to declare it publicly in this House, and then to receive whatever might have been his reply. That situation, like the conditions, has been entirely changed, and we have to judge the question afresh. The special reason for the proposition having gone by, as we consider, the proposition itself falls to the ground; and it is our intention, therefore, when the House meets in October, to resume the consideration of the Resolutions as they stood, with one exception, that I will mention directly, at the time when this proposal was conceived and entertained. We shall proceed to the discussion of them just as we should proceed to the discussion of any Bill, or any Government measure, with a perfect willingness to entertain any proposal that may be made, which might appear to involve, perhaps, an improvement, or, at any rate, a change expedient to be adopted in the whole circumstances of the case, and comformably to the general purpose in view—looking at the same time to the substance of our Resolutions, and hoping that in view of the great necessity which we think exists the House will be prepared to accede to them. But there is one exception, and that is one which I ought to mention, because I intend to strike out from the list the Resolution which relates to the Monday Rule for Committee of Supply. We propose to part with that Resolution altogether, and the House may consider it as dropped, as far as we are concerned. But I am bound to say this—we drop it with the view of substituting for it what we hope will be found a more advantageous and a more effectual mode of relieving the House, and saving its time very considerably in connection with that particular matter of Supply. I think I have now stated all that belongs to the present time to state in regard to the present course of Business, and all that is necessary in order to redeem the promise I gave on a former occasion.
§ SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEI think it necessary, Sir, to make one observation on the statement we have listened to. I think it is right, and certainly convenient, that the mode of proceeding to be taken in regard to these Resolutions should be left to be reconsidered when the House meets again after the Adjournment which the Go- 1699 vernment have proposed. I think it would have been inconvenient to anticipate in any way those proceedings before we separate, and that we may, and shall now find ourselves, when the House meets on the 24th October, in face of this question, with some modification proposed or indicated on the part of the Government. We do not clearly understand how far that last proposal is to go, and I think, as the right hon. Gentleman holds himself entirely released from giving effect to the communication which he made at the beginning of May, and which I admit was given under circumstances very different from those which afterwards came about, it must be distinctly understood, on our part, that we are entirely free to take what course we think fit with regard to the Resolutions proposed, and with regard to each in its turn. That is a matter of great importance. There have been various statements made at different times, showing our readiness to consider the other Resolutions if the one to which we had principally objected, which was put first, was modified. That has not been done and will not he done, and we must take time to consider the whole of these important Resolutions with absolute freedom.
MR. GLADSTONEThe right hon. Gentleman was never called upon to make an answer, and never did make an answer, to my note of the 6th of May. There was a further note of his at the commencement of the Session to which I had made reference, which was quite independent of that.
§ SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEI only wish it to be quite distinctly understood that we are in no way bound by anything that has passed.
MR. GLADSTONEOf course, the right hon. Gentleman is perfectly within his right to retract his note of the earlier date of February, if he thinks fit. I do not know if that is intended or not.
§ SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLasked, with reference to the emphatic expressions that had fallen from the Prime Minister, with regard to the superior importance of those changes in the Rules of Procedure, which referred to what he called the delegation of the powers of the House, whether the right hon. Gentleman was at present prepared to intimate if it was the intention of the Government to carry the proposal any further?
MR. GLADSTONEThe proposals which we intend to make on that subject 1700 are on the Paper of the House, and it may be that the House may choose to contract, or may choose to extend them. I have spoken of the subject as undoubtedly involving, in my opinion, by far the most important part of the entire question, and the proposal we intend to make in October is to take up the Rules as they were left, with the exception I have alluded to.
§ LORD JOHN MANNERSasked if the Prime Minister would at once place before the House the terms of the Rule he proposed to substitute for the one he intended to abandon on the subject of taking Supply on Monday?
MR. GLADSTONENo, Sir; we shall consider carefully the terms of such a Rule, and take care to present it to the House in abundant time.
§ MR. O'DONNELLsaid, he understood, from the statement of the Prime Minister, that the original offer of the right hon. Baronet the Leader of the Opposition, with regard to the substitution of a two-thirds majority for an absolute majority, was regarded as rejected for the present, and that the circumstances no longer existed under which it was made, and under which the Government were disposed to assent to it. Was he also to understand that there was nothing in the speech of the Leader of the House which bound him not to accept that original offer of the two-thirds majority, in case it seemed to be convenient once more to accept it on the House resuming?
MR. GLADSTONENo, Sir; I have simply said—and I think that is the best way of stating our intentions to the House—that matters, so far as we are concerned, stand exactly as they did before the 6th of May, except the single exception that we propose to withdraw the Resolution as to the Monday Rule for Committees of Supply, and to substitute one which we think more adequate.
§ SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTThe right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister, as I understood him, stated distinctly, in answer to a Question, that he had no intention whatever to deviate from the Resolution that a bare majority was to be that majority which he intended, if possible, to carry. In that case, I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he still adheres to that; because, if he does, I can promise him that, so far as we are concerned—and I believe I am speaking for the whole of 1701 the Opposition—we shall offer to that pro-position our most determined opposition.
§ SIR WILFRID LAWSONsaid, he wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the Resolution giving precedence to the Procedure Rules would be moved during that week, or not until the House met again?
MR. GLADSTONEMy intention is to put that down as a Motion to be taken before the Business commences in the regular course on Tuesday, 24th October.
§ MR. ONSLOWasked whether, when the House met in October, the Prime Minister would sanction, or in any way support, Private Bills or Motions in the Autumn Session? There were many hon. Gentlemen who had crotchets, and would be likely to bring in Bills or Resolutions. Would the Government sanction the promotion of such Bills or Resolutions—especially Liquor Bills?
MR. GLADSTONEThe hon. Gentleman is very vigilant on the subject of the particular kind of Bills in which we know he feels a tender interest. I have already stated that the Government have no disposition to ask the House to sit in the Autumn to consider what is commonly termed private legislation; and as it is our intention to ask the House for all its valuable time on each night, down to the usual period of adjournment, I do not think the hon. Member need be in a state of alarm. I do not speak of what are strictly called Private Bills. They take their own course under a different set of Rules, and nothing I have said has any reference to them.
§ MR. W. M. TORRENSwished to know whether, if Bills which had been referred to Select Committees had to stand over until the expiry of the Adjournment, they would hold the same place as if the Adjournment were only for a week?
MR. GLADSTONESo far as I am concerned, they will follow the general Rule of the House, and will in no way be affected by any view we may entertain.