[ADJOURNED DEBATE.] [TWENTY-SECOND NIGHT.] (Hansard, 15 November 1882)

§ LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL
moved in Resolution 2, after "Motion" (end of Mr. Gladstone's Amendment) to add— Provided, That the granting of the leave of the House, if disputed, shall be determined upon Question put forthwith, but no Division shall be taken thereupon unless demanded by ten Members rising in their places. The noble Lord said he made this Motion in consequence of words that fell from the Prime Minister on the preceding day—that a smaller minority than 40 should have the power of testing whether the House was in favour of a Motion for adjournment, that a particular question might be raised. He thought the number 10 was sufficiently high to justify a division being taken upon the Question as to whether a Motion for Adjournment might be discussed. There were many Members of the House who felt strongly upon particular questions. The hon. Baronet opposite (Sir Wilfrid Lawson), for instance, was celebrated for his strong views upon peace and war; and as this country, whatever Government was in power, was almost always engaged in warlike operations, there were constant occasions when he and his supporters might wish to bring their views 1488 before the House. Then there were the Irish Members, and as, for some time to come, Ireland might continue to be more or less in an inflammatory state, he doubted very much the wisdom of not allowing hon. Members who represented the national feeling in Ireland an opportunity of bringing forward questions which might be regarded in Ireland as of great public importance. It had been suggested that the form of words which he had put on the Paper was not the best; and he therefore proposed to alter it by adding at the end of the Resolution the following words:— Or unless, if fewer than forty Members and not less than ten shall thereupon rise in their places, the House shall on a Division upon Question put forthwith determine whether such Motion shall be made.

§ MR. DODSON
said it would be in the recollection of the House that when this question was mooted last night, his right hon. Friend at the head of the Government said he should be glad to ascertain the feeling of the House in regard to it before the Government came to any conclusion on the subject. The noble Lord had now made his Motion, and the Government would rather like to know what was the wish of the House in respect to it.

§ SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF
complained that it was scarcely fair for the Government to throw back upon the House an Amendment which had been placed upon the Paper in accordance with a suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister. Much discussion had taken place already on the Resolution, and he trusted the Amendment would be accepted without further prolonging it.

§ MR. ARTHUR ARNOLD
regretted that the Government had accepted the Amendment of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler). After a discussion of more than a fortnight upon the Clôture Resolution they had now allowed 40 Members to in- 1489 terrupt the order of Business. If this Amendment were agreed to they would go back to their former position, as it would give the House power to refuse to go on with the Motion for Adjournment. This Amendment would, in fact, restore the power of the majority.

§ SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS
pointed out that the Prime Minister last night had mentioned such a limitation of the Resolution by way of addition, and not in substitution of those already existing. The Amendment of the noble Lord could not do any harm, because leave to move the adjournment would have to be given by the majority, while it would do something in favour of small minorities. He trusted, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman would assent to the Amendment.

§ MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHY
said, he thought the hon. Member for Salford (Mr. Arnold) had wandered into the realms of misconception in regard to the effects of this Resolution. His hon. Friend had got hold of a phrase which had not unfrequently been used during these debates. He talked about a limited minority being already allowed to interrupt the Business of the House. This was not what the Irish Members as a minority claimed. They claimed the right to call the attention of the House to matters of emergency upon Motions made for the adjournment of the House. He thought the Amendment possessed certain advantages. It added one other slight advantage to hon. Members who constituted a minority. As the Resolution at present stood a minority had, as a matter of right, the privilege of standing in their places and claiming a Motion for the adjournment of the House. The Amendment now secured that a smaller number could appeal to the House to allow a discussion to take place. To accept it would be something of a concession, although not a very great one, on the part of the Government.

MR. JOSEPH COWEN
said, this Amendment was simply supplemental of the other, and could interfere with no privilege.

§ MR. MACFARLANE
pointed out that the 1st Resolution would be applied only on the occasion of a great debate—probably once, twice, or three times in a Session—whereas the 2nd Resolution would be applicable to minorities 1490 every day on which the House sat. The Resolution passed last night had made it 40 times more improbable that a Motion for Adjournment should be made than it was before. The Government had got more than ample security; and, therefore, he hoped they would agree to this Amendment, all that could be inflicted on the House by it being a division.

MR. GLADSTONE
said, that in accepting the proposition of 40 Members last night, he had admitted that, under all the circumstances of the case, although it might be a necessary proposition, and though it had received the emphatic assent of the House, yet certainly it was not perfect; it did not give all the justice to small minorities which he believed the majority of the House on an equitable plea, whether it was a Tory or a Liberal majority, would, he was convinced, be disposed to do. It was not in the nature of Englishman or Scotsman either to shut his opponent out from all discussion. But here was a proposal to trust the majority up to a certain point; and he owned that when he had spoken of the general desire of the House, he had had in some degree a special regard to small minorities, and particularly to that which had made itself so conspicuous in the House during recent years, and on behalf of which two hon. Members who had just spoken (Mr. M'Carthy and Mr. Macfarlane) were entitled to speak. They saw an advantage in this proposal, and the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir E. Assheton Cross) was also in favour of it. Under these circumstances, the Government were certainly disposed to concede it. They felt confident in the judgment of the majority; and he was bound to say likewise that he felt perfectly confident that the minorities in whose interests it was given would not abuse it by making frivolous requests to the House, and putting the House to the trouble of division. This was a concession both given and taken in a friendly spirit, and, being so, he was perfectly confident in its operation.

§ MR. WARTON
pointed out that no opportunity would, under this Amendment, be given to a Member for stating the reasons why he wished to make a Motion for Adjournment.

§ MR. NEWDEGATE
desired to know how the Resolution, as amended, would 1491 run? Last night they agreed that a Member might state his reasons for making a Motion in reference to a specific and important public object, and if 40 Members rose in their places the House would allow the Motion to proceed; but it appeared to him that this Amendment would bring about a supplementary arrangement which would nullify what they had agreed to.

§ SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF,
who had given Notice that he would move to negative the Resolution, said, that he would not bring forward that Motion; but he wished to state, in self-defence, that ho thought that on the occasions when he had proposed Motions for Adjournment his action had been justified by the results.

MR. JOSEPH COWEN
asked whether, in the event of 10 Members demanding permission to proceed with a Motion for Adjournment, and a division taking place in which 40 Members supported the Motion, would the votes of these 40 Members constitute a right to discuss the Question?

§ MR. SPEAKER
replied, that in that case the matter would be settled by the majority of the House, as shown by the division.