MOTION FOR LEAVE. (Hansard, 9 February 1882)

MR. LA.BOUCHERE
said, that was a Bill which proposed to deal with a very important subject, and one which the Government had themselves taken in hand. It was clearly impossible to discuss it at that hour of the morning; and he, therefore, begged leave to move the adjournment of the House.

§ MR. E. STANHOPE
said, he wished the House to consider whether its work was to be entirely controlled by the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere), who had taken every possible opportunity of stopping, as far as he was able, every measure proposed by hon. Members sitting on that side of the House. The hon. Member, in pursuance of that practice, now sought to prevent the introduction of that measure by moving the adjournment of the House, a course which was scarcely fair, and one which it was to be hoped would receive no countenance on the part of the Government. He trusted that he and those hon. Members near him would have the support of right hon. Gentlemen opposite in opposing the Motion before the House.

§ LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL
said, he had no doubt his hon. Friend who had just spoken was justified in the remarks he had made; but he thought the present Motion of the hon. Member for Northampton was only made with the desire of impressing the House with a sense of what it might be in his power to do, if he were disposed to mete out to the present Bill the same treatment that had been accorded to another measure, and he could not believe that the hon. Gentleman would persist in his Motion after the length of time hon. Members had remained in their places, since the debate on the Address was adjourned, in order to bring in the Bills of which they had given Notice. Surely the hon. Gentleman did not wish to punish the innocent 335 as well as the guilty, and prevent the rest of the Bills being brought in. If, however, that was the intention of the hon. Gentleman, he could not think that he would receive the support of Her Majesty's Government. He wished, also, to remark that the Rules of the House with regard to the first reading of Bills appeared to him to be undergoing a very lamentable and serious change. It was not his intention to cast any blame in that respect upon hon. Gentlemen opposite, because he would not assert that the practice of opposing Bills in the manner they were now being opposed began on the opposite side of the House; but he asserted that the practice was one which, if persevered in as it had been that evening, would tend to prevent all legislation. He, therefore, hoped the hon. Member fur Northampton would not press his Motion to a division; but, if so, he trusted it would not receive the support of Her Majesty's Government.

§ MR. DODSON
said, the noble Lord opposite had remarked that a new practice was being introduced into the House with regard to the first reading of Bills. He did not know whether the statement of the noble Lord was correct; but, upon the whole, he thought the House would consider that its old practice was one which was agreeable to common sense. The old practice was that when an hon. Member proposed to bring in a Bill upon a new subject, or one which treated an old subject in a novel manner, or when the Bill was of such a character that it could not be understood by the mere mention of it, the House would usually allow it to be brought in. But if the Bill were one concerning the nature of which there was no doubt, and the House was not disposed to accept it, then the House not unfrequently, in former days, refused leave to bring in the Bill. It appeared to him that the practice could not be regarded as unreasonable. The hon. Member opposite (Mr. Dixon-Hartland) was asking leave of the House to introduce a Bill upon the difficult and complicated subject of Bankruptcy, respecting which it was impossible for hon. Members to form any adequate judgment upon the mere statement of the hon. Member. Therefore he thought it fair that the Bill should be allowed to be brought in, so as to give the hon. Member the op- 336 portunity of submitting his scheme to the judgment of the House. When the Bill was brought in hon. Members would see what were its provisions, and form their conclusions as to whether they were worth discussion hereafter. Under the circumstances, he hoped the hon. Member for Northampton would not be disposed to press his Motion for the adjournment of the House to a division.

§ MR. LABOUCHERE
said, that, after the appeal of the right hon. Gentleman, he would ask leave to withdraw his Motion.

§ MR. SEXTON
regretted that the hon. Member for Northampton had consented to withdraw his Motion for the adjournment of the House, which, under the circumstances, he regarded as a very proper one. The right hon. Gentleman on the Treasury Bench (Mr. Dodson) had made a most sensible speech, and he agreed that the old practice was a good one—-that, as a matter of courtesy, a Member should be permitted to bring in his Bill. But the present Bill came under the category of those measures which no Member could understand. He should persist throughout the Session in dividing against measures of the kind, and regretted that the hon. Member for Northampton had not allowed him the opportunity of doing so on the present occasion. He wished to show the Government that the policy which had been adopted towards him was one which admitted of retaliation.