§
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That when a Motion is made for the Adjournment of a Debate, or of the House, during any Debate, or that the Chairman of a Commitee do Report Progress, or do leave the Chair, the Debate thereupon shall be strictly confined to the matter of such Motion; and no Member, having spoken to any such Motion, shall be entitled to move, or second, any similar Motion
1492
during the same Debate, or during the same sitting of the Committee."—(Mr. Gadstone.)
§ SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFmoved to insert in line 1, after the word "That," the following words—
Except on a Motion for going into a Committee of Supply or Ways and Means, or when the House is in Committee of Supply or Ways and Means, or on any of the stages of the Appropriation Bill.The object of his Amendment, he explained, was to exempt from the operation of the Rule debates connected with Committee. The primary functions of the House were to redress grievances and to vote Supplies. The rights of Members in connection with those functions would be seriously affected if the Rule were agreed to unamended. He thought they ought to pause before limiting the rights of those whose difficult duty it was to see that the finances of the country were properly administered, and that the various Departments in the service of the Crown were kept in a state of efficiency.
§
Amendment proposed,
In line 1, after the word "That," to insert the words "except on a Motion for going into a Committee of Supply or Ways and Means, or when the House is in Committee of Supply or Ways and Means, or on any of the stages of Appropriation Bill."—(Sir H. Drummond Wolff.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
MR. GLADSTONEconsidered that the Amendment embraced a great deal more than appeared on the face of the proposal, and therefore he hoped that the House would not accept it. By usage the proceedings in Committee of Ways and Means were very largely allowed to pass without interruption as a matter of form, and there was at least one occasion in every Session when such Committees must be expedited. It would, therefore, be inconvenient to encourage any alteration in that practice by the acceptance of the definite proposal of the hon. Member. If the Amendment were passed the discussion on a Motion made on going into Committee or in Committee for the adjournment of the debate could not be confined to one subject. One Gentleman would be able to make a speech on a question of foreign policy, another—the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands), for instance—might address the House on some question of economy, and a third might deliver himself of his views on an Irish question. He thus objected to 1493 the Amendment on two grounds. In the first place, he objected to legalizing as a normal proceeding the interruption of debates in Committee of Supply or of "Ways and Means; and, secondly, he objected to the raising of omnibus debates on Motions for the Adjournment in Committee.
§ LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLsaid, he was surprised at the extraordinarily mistaken view which the Prime Minister with marvellous ingenuity had put before the House. The Amendment, which was a perfectly bonâ fide one, proposed no alteration in the present practice of the House, by which considerable latitude was allowed to the Member moving the adjournment of the debate. The Government seemed to be desirous to limit the speech of an hon. Member about to move the adjournment to the actual Motion for Adjournment. He could not see what use there could be in moving the adjournment if an hon. Member could not state his reasons for doing so. He wished to know whether, in future, hon. Members would be allowed to give their reasons, or would they have to sit down immediately after moving the adjournment? No more un-Constitutional change could be proposed than this attempt to gag Members, whose legitimate right it was to take the opportunity of Supply to place grievances before the House. The Government ought to state in common decency some of the reasons that induced them to propose so stringent a measure.
§ MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHYsaid, he quite agreed with the noble Lord that some explanation was needed as to the meaning of this Rule. Either some of the words were mere surplusage, or they proposed a very new and severe restriction on the liberty of speech. If the Rule merely meant that speeches should be strictly confined to the matter of the Motion it meant nothing, for that was the Rule already. But he assumed it meant something more, and he wanted to know what that was. An hon. Member must have some special reasons for the adjournment of the debate, and to what extent was the Rule to confine him in his statement of those reasons? Suppose there was a sudden disclosure or a sudden hint of Government policy, and an hon. Member pointed out that after that revelation the Committee ought to adjourn, was he to be allowed to give his reasons for thinking that some damage 1494 might come to the public interest if the House proceeded without further consideration? [Mr. GLADSTONE: Hear, hear!] He recollected some years ago, in a Committee on the Navy Estimates, the late Mr. Ward Hunt made some declarations with regard to the state of the Navy, which opened up the question whether the Navy was not in a very bad condition, and whether the Estimates then before the Committee ought not to be altogether displaced. Ought not a Member who in such a case moved the adjournment to be entitled to go into the entire condition of the Navy, and ought not Members who followed to be entitled to do the same? He contended that the Rule involved a further restriction on the liberty of speech, which the House ought to resist.
§ MR. DODSONsaid, there was no novelty in the New Rule, and there would be no difficulty on the part of the Speaker or the Chairman of Committees in interpreting it. The present practice of the House was that when some Member moved the adjournment a debate might go on upon the Main Question, as if no such Motion had been made, but with this difference, that every Member who had already spoken on the Main Question was let in to speak on it a second time, and the object of the Rule now before the House was to check that practice. The hon. Member opposite said that if some revelations were made as to Government policy during a debate that might be a reason for moving the adjournment; and he asked whether a Member would be entitled to state his reasons. It would be perfectly legitimate that, in such a case, the Member should state his reasons. During Urgency last year the very same Rule, that, in moving the adjournment, Members should be strictly confined to the matter of such Motion, was in force. The effect of the Amendment would be to make the latitude which now existed considerably wider in Committee of Supply and Ways and Means. He objected to the Amendment on its merits, because it would make a Rule applicable in Motions for Adjournment which was not applicable in debates on any other subject.
§ LORD JOHN MANNERSconfessed that a good deal of the difficulty he felt with regard to this Resolution had been removed by the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman; but, at the same time, 1495 he hoped it was not to be understood that the Rule was to be so strictly interpreted as in the case of Urgency. Suppose that, in the discussion of the Colonial Estimates, it appeared that the Government bad taken some important step of policy—say, for example, had annexed an Island—and a Motion was made to report Progress, he did not think the Rule ought to be so strictly interpreted as under Urgency. He would suggest that the Government should agree to strike out the word "strictly;" and if that were so, he would advise his hon. Friend not to press the Amendment.
§ MR. RYLANDSsaid, he thought the suggestion of the noble Lord a good one, as it would prevent the Resolution being misunderstood. He quite agreed with the Prime Minister that under the present Rules the voting of Supplies was very much of a farce, and that they might as well dispense with the examination of the Estimates altogether. He was aware that it was asserted by hon. Gentlemen opposite that he and his Friends did not criticize the Estimates of the present Government; but, however much he and others might be disposed to criticize the Estimates of the present Government—and their Estimates were very large—they were prevented, by the present state of Public Business, from taking that course which they would otherwise have done.
§ MR. STANLEY LEIGHTONsubmitted, on a point of Order, that the Prime Minister was not entitled to speak a second time, except to explain something he had already said; he was not entitled to introduce new matter.
§ MR. STANLEY LEIGHTONI object, Sir.
MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he wished to address a few words to the House which might shorten debate. He awaited the order of the Chair, not that of the hon. Member.
§ MR. SPEAKERI wish to point out that it is the usual practice, as the House knows, on the consideration of Bills or Motions, to allow the Member in charge of the Bill to make an explanation on any point. The House is now 1496 engaged in an analogous proceeding; and, with the indulgence of the House, the right hon. Gentleman can again speak.
§ MR. STANLEY LEIGHTONsaid, he always understood that the "leave of the House" should be unanimous, and that it could not be given if one Member objected. If a single Member could object, he objected. It must be understood, if the right hon. Gentleman proceeded, it was not "by the leave of the House."
§ MR. SPEAKERMr. Gladstone.
MR. GLADSTONEexplained that he wished to say that as hon. Members had, not unnaturally, argued that the expression "strictly confined" might be taken as indicating that there was to be some peculiar rigour in the application of this Rule, he was disposed to give up the word "strictly" on the understanding that this would be satisfactory to those who were proposing the present Amendment.
§ MR. SYNANsaid, he thought that the argument of the President of the Local Government Board appeared to be conclusive against the Amendment, and conclusive also against the first part of the Rule. If speakers were by the present practice confined to the matter of the Motion, what was the necessity of introducing a positive Rule on the subject? For the concluding part of the Rule there might be some reason, and perhaps it might be necessary to adopt it; but the Amendment was too wide, and the House should reject it.
§ SIR HENRY HOLLANDsaid, he was afraid that be differed in his view of this Amendment and Resolution from many of those on his side of the House; but that made him more desirous to state, in a few words, that view. Of course, Members who were of opinion that there had been no abuse in respect of Motions and proceedings for adjournment would uphold the existing system and support the Amendment as, to a certain extent, modifying the terms of the Resolution. But he was one of those who thought that there had been great abuse of the Forms of the House, and a great and lamentable delay of the Business of the House, owing to the proceedings upon Motions for Adjournment. And he thought that this was especially shown in Committee of Supply, when admittedly the most important Business of the House—namely, 1497 the discussion upon and criticism of the Estimates put forward by the Government—was so often delayed by useless Motions for Adjournment and speeches on matters other than those immediately before the House. He, therefore, had a special objection to the Amendment of his hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth (Sir H. Drummond Wolff), as the effect of that Amendment would be to keep the present practice in force during Supply. He (Sir Henry Holland) was quite alive to the importance of Members having full opportunity for bringing forward and discussing grievances; but would there not be abundant opportunities, even if this proposed Resolution were passed? There was no grievance, he ventured to say, that could not be properly and legitimately raised upon some Vote in Supply, or upon Motion in the House; and he could not conceal from himself that Motions for Adjournment were constantly made without even the pretence of a grievance being put forward. Then, it had been asked, what could be stated under the words of the Resolution, "the debate thereupon shall be confined to the matter of such Motion?" He omitted the word "strictly," as the Prime Minister had expressed the readiness of the Government to omit that word; but, that word being omitted, he could not think there was much difficulty in determining what could be said upon such a Motion; and the more so as no difficulty or doubt had arisen upon like words, which, it appeared, were inserted in the Urgency Rules. Members could, of course, urge any grounds for supporting or opposing the adjournment, as, for example, the lateness of the hour; the necessity for time being given to answer some new point raised by the Government; some new revelation, or some special concession, and so forth. But they could not, and ought not, under cover of such a Motion, to discuss the whole of the Main Question again. If, however, there was any doubt upon this point, he would suggest to the Prime Minister that the words "the matter of such Motion" might be omitted, in order to insert the words "a statement of the grounds of supporting or opposing such Motion." For the reasons he had stated he should give his general support to the Resolution and to the principle involved in it, though he should, later on, support the Amend- 1498 ment of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson), by which the limitation to move or second a subsequent Motion for Adjournment would be confined to Members who had proposed or seconded a prior Motion, and would not include Members who had only spoken on that Motion.
§ MR. STANLEY LEIGHTONdenied that he meant any personal offence to the Prime Minister when he interrupted him. He wanted, however, to be careful of the Forms of the House; and when the right hon. Gentleman addressed the House for six or seven times on the same Motion it was time to interfere. The Rules of the House, printed and placed in their hands, were very explicit upon the point—that no Member, not even a Member in charge of a Bill or Resolution, had a right to speak more than once, except by leave or by the indulgence of the House. That leave or indulgence must be unanimous. He thought the Government would do well to accept the small restriction proposed by his hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth.
§ MR. HICKSsaid, they were bound to uphold the right and privilege of private Members to inquire into all grievances in that House. He would, therefore, make a suggestion which he trusted would be acceptable to the right hon. Gentleman opposite—namely, that the Amendment of the hon. Member for Portsmouth should be amended by striking out all the words after "Means," in order to insert "when the Rules of the House shall remain as they now are." That, he thought, would meet all the objections.
§ MR. J. R. YORKEsaid, no doubt many hon. Members on that side of the House were in favour of a modification of the Rules with a view to their restriction; but he believed there was a general feeling that the proper mode of proceeding in this matter had been inverted. All these different points ought to have been considered first, and then, if there appeared to be any ground still uncovered on which it was necessary to guard the House against the interference with the rights of the majority, some form of clôture might have been introduced less stringent than that which had just been passed. He should like to ask for a direction from the Chair as to the point on which his hon. Friend the Mem- 1499 ber for North Shropshire appealed to the Speaker just now. It was one of those points which, under the old and laxer system which had till now prevailed, had never been strictly criticized. It had been the custom, since he had been in the House, to allow a Member in charge of a Bill or Resolution greater latitude than would be tolerated in any other Member in rising from time to time to announce his intention of making a change, although he had technically exhausted his right of addressing the House. He had always understood that this was done as a means of oiling the wheels of debate, but that it was done strictly subject to the unanimous approbation of the House. As they were now entering on a new period and were overshadowed by a hostile clôture, he should be very grateful for a direction from the Speaker as to the exact position of any right hon. Gentleman who rose, as the Prime Minister did just now, to explain a matter of this kind. When the Prime Minister brought in his Resolutions he had two alternatives. He might have taken the course he actually did adopt, or he might have introduced the Resolutions in a Committee of the Whole House. It was, of course, easy to understand why he did not adopt the latter alternative. The position which the Prime Minister occupied was one which he deliberately adopted, with full knowledge of the responsibilities which it involved, with the knowledge that ho himself could only speak once, and that he would derive the advantage of other Members lying under the same incapacity. He wished to ask the Speaker what was the meaning of "the indulgence of the House." Did it mean the unanimous acquiescence of the Whole House, or the permission of the majority? And if of a majority, how was the majority to be ascertained—by a division or some other process? Or was the question settled by an unwritten law, which it was not competent for a Member to challenge?
§ MR. SPEAKERI can only state, for the hon. Member's information, what is the usage of the House. The usage has been such as I have already stated it to be, that in the case of a Member in charge of a Bill, or of a Resolution of like character to a Bill, the indulgence of the House has been shown to such Member, but has been limited to that Member, and not extended 1500 to others. And the Member taking charge of such a matter is bound to confine himself to an explanation for the convenience of the House, and is not entitled to enter upon new or debatable matters. I am bound to say that the practice has been uniform, and has been used for many years, and I should not consider myself entitled to depart from that usage without special instructions from the House.
§ SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFasked whether a Member moving to report Progress with reference to a particular Vote in Supply would be entitled to give his reasons for making the Motion—as, for example, why he thought that the building of certain ships was not at the time desirable?
§ MR. SPEAKERI understand the Question of the hon. Member to be this—whether, in the event of a Motion to report Progress being made in Committee of Supply, the Member moving to report Progress would be at liberty to refer to the Vote under discussion. I think he would not be at liberty to do so.
§ SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFWould he be at liberty to say anything?
§ MR. SPEAKERHe would be at liberty to state his reasons for or against reporting Progress.
§ SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFWhat I want to ask you, Sir, is, whether a Member moving to report Progress on a particular Vote is not at liberty to say why he thinks that Vote should be postponed for the present?
§ MR. SPEAKERHe would be quite at liberty to state what is suggested by the hon. Member.
§ SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFsaid, after that explanation he would ask leave to withdraw his Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
MR. GORSTrose to move to omit the words "for the Adjournment of a Debate, or of the House, during any Debate." The Resolution would then read "when a Motion is made in Committee of Supply;" and the old practice would remain except in Committee of Supply. The Government were putting fresh and unnecessary chains upon the discussions of that House, and the subsequent Resolutions were amply sufficient to prevent Obstruction. The weapon of moving the adjournment of the House 1501 should not he infrequently used. He could quote occasions on which, in former Parliaments, prominent Liberals in that House had used that weapon with great success. He was not finding fault with them for so doing—on the contrary, he thought their conduct was justifiable. The first instance he would give was during the Conservative Administration of 1868. On the 16th of July a Bill, supported by the Government for the slaughter of foreign cattle, was opposed by several Liberal Members representing large constituencies. Four successive Motions for Adjournment were made for the purpose of destroying the Bill, in which aim they were successful. Mr. Bazley, Member for Manchester, made the first Motion, and that Motion and those which followed were supported by Mr. W. E. Forster, Mr. Milner Gibson, Mr. Goschen, Mr. Shaw Lefevre, Mr. Labouchere, Mr. Cheetham, Mr. P. A. Taylor, and Mr. Cowen, father of the present Member for Newcastle. The Motions were all rejected by majorities of three or four to one. Yet those repeated efforts made by small minorities were successful. Were the Liberals of the present day willing to lay down a weapon which had served them so well in the past? On another occasion numerous Motions for Adjournment were made on a Bill brought in during the late Ministry, and those Motions were supported by the Hon. Mr. Ashley, Sir Charles Dilke, the Marquess of Hartington, and Mr. Mundella. The result was that the Bill was abandoned. The third instance he would mention was that of the debate on the Elementary Education Bill in August, 1876. On that occasion no less than 11 Motions for Adjournment were made, the principal Members taking part in the divisions and Motions being Mr. Chamberlain, Mr. Fawcett, Mr. Forster, Sir William Harcourt, the Marquess of Hartington, Mr. Mundella, and Mr. Shaw Lefevre. If in 1876—only six years ago—when the Liberal Party was in a minority, they found that this instrument was necessary against the tyranny of a Conservative majority, why were they now going to destroy a weapon which, in their hands, had proved so effective? He was anxious to hear the reasons they would adduce for giving up that privilege. It was true that at present the minority was Conservative and the majority Liberal. But did Gentlemen opposite believe there 1502 never would be a time when the Conservative Party would be in a majority? He appealed to them to put themselves in the position of the minority, and consider whether occasions were not likely to arise on which they would want to force delay on the Government, and force on them the reconsideration of their measures and proposals. What power would they have of doing so if this Resolution were passed? Why, none whatever. Then, why part with such a useful power, when they might effect the object in view by modifying and regulating the privilege in such a way as to limit its use to cases of emergency?
§ Amendment proposed, in line 1, to leave out from the word "made" to the word "that," in line 2.—(Mr. Gorst.)
§ Question proposed, "That the words 'for the Adjournment of a Debate, or of the House, during any Debate,' stand part of the Question."
MR. GLADSTONEsaid the hon. and learned Gentleman had introduced his speech with great ingenuity, and had elicited great cheering from the Gentlemen behind him, who evidently believed that something was going to be done that would extinguish all rights of minorities. The plain answer to this was that they were not going to be extinguished. In fact, the speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman had no bearing on anything whatever before the House. Every one of the proceedings which the hon. and learned Gentleman had set out in such detail, to the infinite amusement of the Gentlemen behind him, might, so far as he had heard them, go on undisturbed and unimpaired under the present Resolution as proposed by the Government. The hon. and learned Gentleman had cited a series of cases in which numbers of successive Gentlemen had moved either in Committee or in the House—perhaps sometimes in the one and sometimes in the other—
§ LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLThey were all in the House.
MR. GLADSTONEWell, all in the House; and there was nothing in the Resolution, as the Government proposed it, to prevent an exact repetition of those proceedings. Indeed, he believed that, even under the existing Rules, an hon. Member would not be allowed again to move the same Motion for the adjournment of the debate or of the House; 1503 consequently, all those privileges which the hon. and learned Gentleman desired to preserve would be preserved by this Resolution. There was no intention whatever to restrict or limit the number of times an adjournment might be moved by different persons. But there would be imported into the proceedings in Committee a restriction which justly prevailed in regard to the House—namely, that the same Member should not make either of these same Motions twice. He hoped he had satisfied the House that the Resolution would not bring about any of the things which the hon. and learned Member had predicted and deprecated; because he quite agreed with him that though the privilege of moving the adjournment might be, and had been, greatly abused, it was, nevertheless, one of great utility, and he confessed he had known it used in a remarkable manner by Gentlemen who had only the public interest at heart. He hoped he had shown that the speech of the hon. and learned Member might be set aside, inasmuch as they conceded all it contained. But the Amendments which the hon. and learned Gentleman had invited the House to consider were of a totally different character, and he would consider very briefly the effect of those Amendments. The hon. and learned Gentleman had proposed a double change in the Resolution. The first, which was the one in point of form now before the House, was confined entirely to that part of the Resolution relating to Committee. But, in his opinion, the House had already unanimously arrived at the conclusion, upon the Motion of the hon. Member for Portsmouth (Sir H. Drummond Wolff), that it was desirable to confine the speeches on a Motion for Adjournment during debate to matter which was relevant—that was to say, to matter bearing upon the Question before the House. His second objection was that the hon. and learned Member proposed to entirely confine the operation of that Rule to Committees of the House. He contended that it ought not to be so confined, and that the limitation was a reasonable one for debate in the House itself. It would be impossible for the Government to accede to the proposal of the hon. and learned Member.
MR. MACARTNEYsupported the Amendment, and pointed out that under another of the proposed Rules power would be given to the Speaker or the 1504 Chairman of Committees to silence a Member for irrelevance or tedious repetition. He asked what stronger power than that could be required?
§ Question put.
§ The House divided:—Ayes 103; Noes 34: Majority 69.—(Div. List, No. 369.)
§ LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL, in moving the next Amendment to the Resolution, which stood on the Paper in his name, said, he was the more encouraged to do so on account of the course taken by the Government on the previous Amendment. When his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst) proposed an important modification of the Resolution in a speech of great ability, supported by numberless facts drawn from his experience, which the Government had failed to answer, he had the pain of seeing those on whom he was accustomed to look for Leadership going into the Lobby against him. For himself, it would be his endeavour on that Resolution, as on the others, to try and cut down its operation in every way, and, to use the words of the right hon. Member for Westminster (Mr. W. H. Smith), to pick up whatever he could get. He now proposed by that Amendment that the power of stopping the mouths of Members—for that was what it came to—should be vested only in the Speaker, and not in the Chairman of Committees. On the 1st Resolution they had a great deal of discussion on this subject, and he thought the general sense of the House was that the Chairman was not entitled to the same confidence as the Speaker. They were much indebted to the right hon. Baronet the Member for Mid Kent (Sir William Hart Dyke) for having initiated them into the practices of Government "Whips" in communicating constantly, and, indeed, always, to the Chairman of Committees the wishes and the will of the Prime Minister of the day. His right hon. Friend the Member for Mid Kent had told the House that during the Parliament of 1874 he never left the elbow of the Chairman of Committees, and used to say to the Chairman—"If this discussion is not put a stop to, what will the Prime Minister say?" They had a suspicion before that that this practice did go on; but they had no idea it was carried so far. He presumed the noble Lord (Lord Richard Grosvenor) 1505 did the same as his Predecessors. The Chairman of Committees was, therefore, not in every way impartial. He was only a Government hack. ["Oh, oh!" "Withdraw!"] He would not have been justified in saying this but for the statement of the late Conservative Whip. The Prime Minister was present when the statement was made; but, though he appeared very much shocked by it, he never said that the noble Lord did not do the same. ["Withdraw!"] Well, he would withdraw the term Government "hack" if the hon. Gentleman wished; but he said that the Chairman of Committees was, at all events, a great deal more of a Party man than they had had any idea of before. He altogether objected to strengthening the hands of the Chairman. He thought it extremely doubtful what would be the position of the Speaker's Successors under the New Rules. He believed that the character of the Office would be maintained. But it was a very different thing in regard to the Chairman. He would be a partizan, who would be elected for the purpose of silencing brutally opposition to the Government. But was it not a sign of what was coming that the Chairman of Committees, for whom personally he had the greatest respect on account of his learning, attainments, and affability, but for whose conduct in the Chair he had never heard any Member expressing their admiration, had so far forgotten his position as to vote in the majority in favour of the gag? That was the partizan Chairman in whom the House was invited to place those great powers. Throughout all the Resolutions the Chairman was placed on an equality with the Chair, and at his elbows was always to be found the Government Whip; and the Chairman himself was unable to conceal his partizanship by abstaining to vote for the gag. In the face of the restrictions which had already been imposed, and the restrictions which were still to be imposed, he thought it his duty to move this Amendment, even if Gentlemen on his own side of the House signalized themselves, as they had done in the last division, by supporting the Prime Minister. He thought it necessary to do so in justice, not only to the House, but to the country; and he called on the Government to state definite reasons, based on facts, why they should 1506 abolish all their privileges, and hand themselves over, tied and bound, to the partizan Chairman of Committees. The Prime Minister had not answered the temperate argument of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Chatham. The Prime Minister seemed to be filled with such an amount of disdain and contempt for the present House of Commons that he did not think it necessary to state any reason why these alterations should be made. ["Oh, oh!"] Except on the 1st Resolution, they had not had the slightest explanation of why these changes should be made. But he would call the attention of the House to the opinions of the present Members of the Government in 1879 and 1880. The present Home Secretary, in vindicating the Session of 1879 from the charge of barrenness, referred to the Army Discipline Bill as being equal in importance and difficulty to three or four ordinary Bills. What if the same remark had been applied to the Irish Land Bill? The Home Secretary then went on to say that he did not wish an impression to go forth that the House of Commons was incapable of performing its functions. That statement of the right hon. and learned Gentleman fully justified opposition to the changes now proposed. But he would refer to the highest authority of all. In the year 1880 the Prime Minister set afoot his designs upon the freedom and privileges of the House. ["Order!"] He had frequently found right hon. Members on the Front Bench correcting each other. The Prime Minister at that time was sending out a Circular to foreign countries for the purpose of discovering methods of suppressing minorities in Foreign Assemblies. He wished to show, however, the hypocrisy and sham on the part of the Government in stating that the House of Commons was unable to do its Business. He turned, therefore, to the Royal Speech of 1880. That document stated that—
Notwithstanding the lateness of the period at which you began your labours, your indefatigable zeal and patience have enabled you to add to the Statute Book some valuable laws.The Speech then referred to the Education Act, the Employers' Liability Act, the Ground Game Act, the Malt Tax, the Savings' Bank Act, and other measures. After such expressions of opinion on the part of the Home Secretary 1507 and of himself, he challenged the Prime Minister to get up and show cause for the introduction of those further Resolutions. His hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Gorst) had reminded the Liberal Party that they might not always be in a majority. Well, there was one danger they would be exposed to in the event of their being in a minority. There was no subject on which they had stronger feelings than Free Trade. Well, they were aware that there had been a movement among the working classes hostile to Free Trade. ["No, no!"] He would not go into the extent of the movement; but it would be quite possible for a Conservative Government, under these New Rules, to pass measures against Free Trade within three weeks—before Liberal Members and the country had wakened up to a knowledge of what was going on. If these Resolutions were passed, he would like to know what facilities Liberals would have of arresting the progress of legislation proposed by the Conservatives? He moved these Amendments not with the object of opposing the Government, but solely for the purpose of preserving the Privileges of that House, by means of which the Liberals had won all those reforms of which they were never tired of boasting. The Prime Minister's memory would live long after they were all dead and forgotten; but he could not understand why, at a moment when the right hon. Gentleman said he did not look forward to much more active participation in the affairs of the State, he should destroy one after another, in this apparently indiscriminate manner, all the privileges which had made the House of Commons famous. If the right hon. Gentleman, tempted by momentary ambition or spite at being prevented from carrying measures on which he had set his heart, were determined to destroy the rights of the minority in that House, his reputation in the future would be greatly damaged. The noble Lord concluded by moving his Amendment.
§
Amendment proposed,
In line 2, to leave out all the words after the word "Debate," to the word "Chair," in line 3, inclusive.—(Lord Randolph Churchill.)
§ Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
1508MR. GLADSTONEsaid, that he was glad that the concluding words of the noble Lord's (Lord Randolph Churchill's) speech had contained so formal a withdrawal of the proclamation of war against the Government which he had made the other day, and that he was only going to endeavour to get the Resolution amended. He was also glad to hear that the noble Lord's object was to preserve the Privileges of Parliament, for the noble Lord had previously told them that his intention was not to improve these Resolutions, but to make the position of the Government impracticable, and so force them to dissolve Parliament. It was satisfactory to have that statement formally withdrawn, and the pleasure would be shared by the noble Lord's own Party, or rather by the Party opposite, to which the noble Lord could not strictly be said to belong. With reference to the complaint of silence raised by the noble Lord, he (Mr. Gladstone) had not noticed the objections which had been raised by the noble Lord and his Friends to the Resolution in detail, and there were two reasons for it. With regard to the facts stated by the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst), he (Mr. Gladstone) had not answered them in detail, because he had accepted them in the lump; and he had done the same—though, perhaps, rather rashly—in regard to some of the noble Lord's statistics. But he was bound to say there was another reason why he was content to pass over many of the noble Lord's statements, and that was, that with the noble Lord's extraordinary command of words or matter—at all events, words—he delivered himself of his opinions in terms so large, and so far beyond facts, that he (Mr. Gladstone) was content to leave hon. Gentlemen to answer them for themselves. When the noble Lord reiterated the question, "Why do you go on extinguishing all the privileges of private Members?" he did not think it necessary to enter into a discussion upon the point. Hon. Gentlemen, who had the Resolutions in their hands, and who knew what the powers of individual Members were, would see at once that all such remarks were more rhetorical flourishes that had no relation to the real facts of the case. He would now, however, come to the point. The noble Lord had revived a statement of a very extraordinary character, which was made 1509 by the right hon. Baronet the Member for Mid Kent (Sir William Hart Dyke) with reference to the conduct of the Whips when the Chairman of Committees was in the Chair, and which the noble Lord said that he (Mr. Gladstone) did not contradict at the time. He wished the matter had been referred to when the right hon. Baronet was in his place; but as the subject had been introduced, he might follow the noble Lord in his reference. The noble Lord said he (Mr. Gladstone) had not contradicted the right hon. Baronet, and that, therefore, he must be considered as having admitted its accuracy; and as having admitted it not only in regard to the right hon. Baronet, but in regard to all other Whippers-in and Chairmen of Committees. The fact was that he was so much struck with the statement that he took it down, and he would read the Memorandum he had made of it, as well as the comment upon it which he had jotted down—
Sir W. Hart Dyke, Nov. 7—Under the late Government was always at elbow of Chairman of Committees urging him to get on with the Votes.And then followed his (Mr. Gladstone's) own comment, made for reply, in these terms—In that practice he was without a predecessor, and without an imitator. No Whip had ever done it before him, and none had ever done it after him.The noble Lord could see the Memorandum if he wished.
§ LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLsaid, that the right hon. Gentleman had not made that observation on the statement publicly before. Why had he not made use of the note after having made it?
MR. GLADSTONEsaid, that he was coming to the reason why he did not state it to the House at that time. It was because he was often and very justly called over the coals for the number and length of his speeches; and, upon the occasion in question, such an enormous multitude of points were raised, some belonging to the subject, others remotely connected with it, and some within a measurable distance of it, that he was bound to pass many of them over. After the interminable debates on this subject, he had felt it necessary to lighten the ship by throwing overboard some of the cargo; and among the 1510 portion of the cargo thrown overboard was that portion of the cargo which had reference to the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir William Hart Dyke), because he was anxious not to make an immeasurable demand upon the patience of the House. He thought, however, that now attention had been specially directed to the point, some notice of the statement should be taken at an appropriate period by the right hon. Gentleman who bad formerly filled the Chair (Mr. Raikes), who, he (Mr. Gladstone) thought, must have something to say on the subject, and in regard to whom he had himself always been of opinion that he discharged his duties with great ability and impartiality. At the same time, he (Mr. Gladstone), while denying that the statement of the right hon. Baronet the Member for Mid Kent had the slightest application to the present time, did not venture to challenge its truth. He could only say that never, either in his own person, or through a Whipper-in, or through any Member of the Government, had he dared or presumed to interfere with the judgment of the Chairman of Committees upon any question awaiting settlement by the House. Then the noble Lord complained that the present Chairman of Committees was a supporter of the Government, and an obvious partizan, because he voted for them in the division on the 1st of the Rules of Procedure. But his (Mr. Gladstone's) knowledge and experience were that it had been the invariable practice of Chairmen of Committees to vote upon all questions of importance in the House. [Lord RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: Yes, and with the Government.] No; not always with the Government. There were cases where the Chairman had not agreed with the Government; but if the noble Lord admitted that it had been the uniform practice of the Chairman to vote with the Government, then he ought not to make it a special subject of allegation against the right hon. Gentleman the present Chairman (Mr. Lyon Playfair) that he recently voted on an important question, affecting in some degree, no doubt, his own Chair, but mainly the greater Chair in which the Speaker sat. He now came to the Amendment of the noble Lord itself, and he was sorry it should have been necessary to go into matters which were beyond that Amendment. It sought to 1511 provide that the Resolution should have no reference whatever to Committees of the House, or to the Chairman of Committees. He could not help comparing it with the Amendment which they had just disposed of. The hon. and learned Member for Chatham, the other Leader, or one of the three Leaders of the three Members who constituted the Fourth Party, had, in his Amendment, proposed to cut out of the Resolution everything that concerned the House, and to leave in only what concerned the Committee.
§ LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLIt is the other way.
MR. GLADSTONEThey had before them the Committee of the House in that Resolution. The hon. and learned Gentleman proposed to cut out the one, but to spare the other; and now the noble Lord came in and proposed to cut out what the hon. and learned Gentleman had spared.
MR. GLADSTONEHe would not allow the Resolution to apply to Committees at all; whereas his Amendment was exactly the reverse of that of the hon. and learned Member.
§ LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLexplained that the object of his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Gorst) was to assimilate the procedure in Committee with respect to matters to report Progress; but, that not having been carried, he proposed to restrict the power to the Chairman of Committees.
MR. GLADSTONEsaid, that the position of the noble Lord and the hon. and learned Member reminded him of the old story—"That which the locust spared the caterpillar devoured." He hoped the House, with the sanction of the authority of the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Gorst), would oppose the noble Lord's Amendment, the contention of the Government being that the Resolution ought to apply to the case of Committee as well as when the House should be sitting.
MR. GORSTsaid, that he rose for the purpose of explaining that it had not been his intention to give, by his Amendment, that which the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill) desired to take away. The question before them was, whether the Chairman of Committees ought to 1512 be intrusted with the power which they were about to confer on the Speaker. He did not want to attack the Chairman of Committees; but, on the other hand, he had no wish to imitate the example of the two Front Benches by indulging in the conventional praise which was given to Chairmen. They all knew what it meant. It was the correct thing to declare the Chairman impartial; but to that he demurred. A Chairman of Committees was not much better or worse than other men, and would be perfectly impartial if he were placed in a perfectly impartial position. How could they expect their Chairman to be as impartial as their Speaker, when his position was entirely different? What was the Chairman? He was a Member of the Party which had been victorious in the Elections, and when the Prime Minister distributed the loaves and fishes to his supporters, one of the loaves, and a very big loaf, was given in the form of the Chairmanship of Committees to some Gentleman who had distinguished himself by his zeal and energy in promoting the cause of the victorious Party. Moreover, the salary of the Chairman of Committees was not quite fixed; for, in the last Parliament, it was raised from £1,500 to £2,000 or £2,500, so that he had not only the consciousness that he had earned his place by his zealous service, but he had also the feeling that if he pleased the Prime Minister and the Party in power he might have his salary raised. He had also to look to the future; for he was liable to be turned out at the same time the Government were turned out. The practice was to change the Chairman with the Government. All these things being considered, how could they expect the Chairman to be impartial? The right hon. Gentleman had said that he never interfered with the Chairman of Committees; and no doubt he was correct, but his Colleagues, however, did not observe the same delicacy and reticence, and he had, during recent debates in Committee, seen Members of the Government go to the Chairman of Committees and distinctly give him instructions. The right hon. Gentleman, he thought, had misrepresented the argument about the Chairman's vote. As his noble Friend (Lord Randolph Churchill) had pointed out, the objection was not because the Chairman 1513 voted, but because it was thought he voted to confer some peculiar powers upon himself; and it would have been thought that anyone who was desirous to exhibit his great impartiality in that House would have refrained, at all events, from voting, when the Resolution was that he himself should close the debate by means of extraordinary powers. He (Mr. Gorst) regarded the Amendment as well worthy the consideration of the House, on the ground that, until they altered the position of the Chairman of Committees, they might depend upon it that, in future, whether the Prime Minister gave the order or not, the power would be exercised for the benefit and in the interests of the Government; and that those who were troublesome to the Government, and whose speeches were not pleasant, would find their acts and words interpreted in a bad sense by the Chairman. They would find that they would not be treated so generously as the tried supporters of the Ministers would be.
§ MR. DODSONsaid, he rose for the purpose of pointing out that the effect of the Amendment of the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill), combined with that of the hon. and learned Member who had just spoken (Mr. Gorst), would be to leave nothing of the Resolution. As to the statements of the hon. and learned Gentleman with regard to the Chairman of Ways and Means, they appeared to be evolved from his own consciousness, and were not at all consistent with facts. He had said that the Chairman always went out of Office with the Government; but he (Mr. Dodson) had to remind the hon. and learned Member that, like the Speaker, he was elected, not for the lifetime of a Government, but of a Parliament. [Lord RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: I knew that.] Well, that was as much as to say one Leader of the Party was aware of the fact, the other Leader was not. With regard to the Chairman always going out of Office with the Government, he (Mr. Dodson), in his own person, was an instance that such was not the case; for he had had the honour of holding the Office of Chairman of Ways and Means not only under more than one Liberal Government, but also when the late Lord Derby was Prime Minister and Mr. Disraeli Leader of the House, and also afterwards, when Lord Derby re- 1514 tired and Mr. Disraeli became Prime Minister in the Sessions of 1866, 1867, and 1868; and he had only to add that, when he held that position—whether under one Party or the other—whoever happened to be Members of the Government made not the least difference in his relations with hon. Members on one side or the other. Then, as to the argument that the position of Chairman of Ways and Means was different from that of Speaker, of course, it was a less important Office; but in its attributes it differed only in degree, and not in kind, from the Office of Speaker. In fact, whenever the Speaker was absent, the Chairman of Ways and Means assumed the Chair as Deputy Speaker, and exercised all the powers which were vested in the Speaker himself. Then the hon. and learned Member complained that the present Chairman of Ways and Means voted the other day on the 1st Resolution, which was calculated to increase his own power. No doubt, it was a Resolution which, under certain circumstances, vested in the Chairman a not very pleasant discretion which he would be called upon to exercise; but, as far as personal feeling was concerned, he (Mr. Dodson) should have thought that he would much rather have voted against it. If, however, the Chairman considered that the Resolution—whether proposed by the Government or anyone else—would tend to improve the Business of the House, it was not only perfectly open, but it seemed to be incumbent upon him to record his vote in that manner which he thought most advantageous to the conduct of Business, in which he himself had to bear so important a part.
§ LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, that a short time ago the hon. Member for East Gloucestershire (Mr. J. R. Yorke) remarked that they were discussing this Resolution under the dark shadow of Resolution No. 1. There was great truth in that observation; and, therefore, Her Majesty's Government should not be surprised if speeches were made and Amendments moved which would not have been made and moved if the Resolution had been moved before the 1st Resolution was proposed. He regarded the speech and Amendment of the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill) in that light; and, under existing circumstances, they need 1515 be looked upon with no surprise; but, speaking for himself, he was, nevertheless, bound to say that, having listened to the debates of that morning, he was not prepared to vote for the Amendment of his noble Friend, or the Amendment of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst), because they both very nearly approached the one which was proposed, but not pressed to a division, by the hon. Member for Portsmouth (Sir H. Drummond Wolff). He could not, however, allow the observations that had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister to pass without notice. He admitted that his noble Friend the Member for Woodstock had spoken in his usual agreeable, but slightly aggravating, manner, and had thus excited the Prime Minister to deal with topics other than those which he would naturally have dealt with in discussing the Amendment; but for all that the right hon. Gentleman—he (Lord John Manners) spoke with great deference—had exceeded what might fairly have been expected from him on the occasion, when he drew out of his pocket the notes of a speech which he had intended to deliver he did not know how many days ago, and proceeded, with their help, to administer, in his absence, a castigation to the right hon. Member for Mid Kent. Again, with great respect, in pressing the House of Commons to lose no time, and to avoid extraneous topics, the Prime Minister was quite right; but it was going a great deal too far, by the aid of notes taken from his pocket, to denounce, more or less, the conduct, as well as the language, of a right hon. Gentleman not then in the House. ["No, no!"] That, at least, was his opinion, and hon. Members opposite had a right to theirs. He had no doubt his right hon. Friend would take an early opportunity of setting himself right with the House in that particular matter. But what his right hon. Friend probably intended to convey was, that the Chairman of Committees usually sat on the Treasury Bench when he was not in the Chair; but that when he was in the Chair the only communications which could pass between him and any Member of the Government had distinct and exclusive reference to the progress of Business. Meanwhile, he would ask whether the 1516 Prime Minister meant to say that neither he nor any Member of the Government had at any time had any communication whatever as to the progress of Business, with either the Speaker or the Chairman, for, if so, that was a statement which, he confessed, drew a very great draft indeed upon his confidence and credulity. It was obvious. They had all witnessed it; and who could complain of the practice, that if the Prime Minister thought that a Member was unduly protracting a debate, he should go or send someone else to the Chairman or the Speaker, and ask if it was not the opinion of the Chair that the Member in question was offending against the Rules of the House? [Mr. GLADSTONE: No, no!] Did the right hon. Gentleman say he had never seen that done? Or was it that he said he had never done it?
MR. GLADSTONEIf the noble Lord asks me whether I have done that, I say no; and I have never seen it done; but it is not that. How is it possible that I can be aware of any communications that pass between the Chair and any Member, that are made in an undertone, without leading to the interruption of the debate?
§ LORD JOHN MANNERSExactly; but did the right hon. Gentleman, with his vast experience, mean to contend that the right hon. Member for Mid Kent was the only official Gentleman who had pointed out to the Speaker or to the Chairman of Committees that some Member was unduly protracting debate? Surely it was often done; and it would be highly inconvenient if this practice were abandoned. Indeed, the complaint which he (Lord John Manners) made against all these Rules was that the House as a body was being made so jealous of the conduct of Gentlemen in Office that very great difficulty would be found in accelerating the progress of Business. He could not allow the observations on the conduct of the right hon. Member for Mid Kent to pass without uttering a protest, and explaining that, in his view, the observations of the right hon. Gentleman had been misinterpreted by the Prime Minister. On the delicate personal question he wished to say nothing one way or the other; but when the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Dodson) went on to justify the vote which the Chairman had given on the 1st Resolution, he admitted 1517 that the Chairman of Committees had voted iu the exercise of an undoubted right; but it was a matter of opinion whether it was wise or unwise to exercise the right. If the question was put to him (Lord John Manners), he must say that in the circumstances of the particular case, he doubted the wisdom of exercising the right. One reason why he said that was, that the Chairman of Committees was Deputy Speaker, and that, in that capacity, he might from time to time have to give a casting vote; and he (Lord John Manners) appealed to all Gentlemen familiar with the practice of the House whether it was not the invariable custom for the Speaker in those cases to give the casting vote in such a way as to enable the House to have again the opportunity of deciding the question at issue. He remembered one very clear case in point, when Mr. Speaker Denison was in the Chair, on a Bill for the abolition of church rates. The votes were equal; but the Speaker instantly, and without hesitation, gave his casting vote against the second reading, and he did so because, in his opinion, it was the duty of the Speaker to afford an opportunity to the House of reconsidering the question. That he took to be the invariable and universal rule that guided the Speaker; and it was therefore, in his opinion, a mistake for the Chairman to have voted at all. He did not wish to press the point an inch further, except to say that the Chairman of Committees having, in the exercise of his undoubted right, given that vote, he thought it would be greatly to the satisfaction of the House if he could find some convenient opportunity of informing them whether he agreed with the interpretation which the Speaker had pronounced as his view of the Rule with respect to the "evident sense of the House." As to the Amendment, if his noble Friend pressed it to a division, he (Lord John Manners) would be unable to follow him into the Lobby.
§ SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFsaid, the Chairman of Committees was a partizan and occupied a totally different position from the Speaker. He received the "Whips" of the Party; he attended their meetings; he voted with them on occasions; and it therefore appeared that he was not in the independent position which the Speaker occupied. The right 1518 hon. Gentleman who was now President of the Local Government Board (Mr. Dodson) had been promoted from the Chairmanship to a comparatively inferior Office—namely, that of Secretary to the Treasury; and though two cases had occurred a very long time ago in which Speakers, became respectively a Prime Minister and a Secretary of State, they did not apply, because those were Offices of great political importance, and were not on the same footing as that of Secretary to the Treasury, which was considered a promotion for the then Chairman. The difference between the Chairman and the Speaker was great. The Speaker merged his name in that of "Mr. Speaker," whereas the Chairman was known as "Mr. Cecil This" or "Dr. Lyon That," When the Chairman, too, was not in the Chair, he became once more the ordinary combatant politician of the House of Commons.
§ MR. STANLEY LEIGHTONinsisted that there was no analogy whatever between the position of Chairman and Speaker, nor were the more informal Sittings in Committee to be too closely compared to the Sittings of the House. The privilege of speaking many times in Committee, and the habit of making short and conversational speeches, were evidences of the broad distinction between the House in Committee and the House when the Speaker was in the Chair. The penal restrictions which might be placed at the discretion of the Speaker were likely to become instruments of injustice in the hands of a Chairman of Committees. He intended to support the Amendment, which he trusted would be pressed to a division.
§ SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, as a question had arisen between his right hon. Friend the Member for Mid Kent (Sir William Hart Dyke) and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Chester (Mr. Raikes), he (Sir R. Assheton Cross) might state that he had reason for saying he believed that an opportunity would be taken by the right hon. Member for Mid Kent to offer an explanation of what he had said in a former debate. As to the Amendment, it appeared to him to have very little practical use or force in it. If the question of adjournment was confined to a Member getting up simply to the point of whether it was right to adjourn at that particular time or not, the moment that was deoided—being in 1519 Committee—he could speak as often as he liked. To his mind, the Amendment did not limit the power of debate in Committee at all. The supporters of the Amendment placed upon it a great deal more weight than it would carry.
§ Question put, and agreed to.
§ Amendment proposed, in line 3, to leave out the word "strictly."—(Lord Randolph Churchill.)
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ MR. WARTON, in moving as an Amendment, in line 4, to omit the words "matter of such Motion," in order to insert the words "matters arising out of the subject then under discussion," said, he did so on account of the highly restrictive nature of the Resolution as it stood. He claimed that the House should be allowed to discuss any matter arising out of the subject under debate. It would be in the discretion of the Chairman to see that the licence was not abused.
§
Amendment proposed,
In line 4, to leave out the words "the matter of such Motion," in order to insert the words "matters arising out of the subject then under discussion,"—(Mr. Warton,)
§ —instead thereof.
§ Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he looked upon the Amendment as destructive to the Resolution, as there was no difficulty in construing its terms as it stood. He could not, therefore, accept it.
§ Question put, and agreed to.
§ MR. SALT, in moving the omission of the latter part of the Rule, which prohibited Members who had spoken on any Motion for Adjournment, or for reporting Progress, or that the Chairman leave the Chair, from moving or seconding any similar Motion during the same debate, or during the same Sitting of the Committee, said, he approached the consideration of the Resolution in a different spirit from that which he felt when the House was dealing with the 1st Resolution upon the clôure. To the clôture he was strongly opposed, not merely upon Party grounds, but upon deeper and wider principles, as absolutely opposed not only to Conservative, 1520 but also to Radical ideas. Now, however, that it had been carried, he would endeavour to use it as loyally as possible to the House. No great and broad principles were involved in the present Resolution. He had, therefore, listened to the criticisms to which it had been subjected entirely with the view of considering how far, in the changing habits of debate, it would really work in the future. It was very necessary to guard against making the Rules too stringent, otherwise Members would be apt to be guided rather by the letter than by the spirit of them; and in that case an amount of Obstruction would be developed far surpassing any they had seen up to the present time. The practice of the House and Committee had been that those who had moved or seconded any of these Motions should not move or second any similar Motion; but the Rule proposed to extend this to every Member who had spoken on such Motion. He contended that that extension of the restriction was not necessary or desirable.
§ Amendment proposed, in line 4, to leave out from the word "Motion," to the end of the Question."—(Mr. Salt.)
§ Question proposed, "That the words 'and no Member having' stand part of the Question."
MR. GLADSTONEsaid, that the proposal of the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Salt) had gone a great degree into the details of the Resolution, and into points which were not now before them. It was not merely an objection to the details of the Resolution, but a proposal to strike it out altogether. It was impossible for the Government to accede to that, nor, indeed, had the hon. Member advanced any argument to justify such a course. At the same time, he (Mr. Gladstone) did not say that those were details which might not require consideration. The object of the Government was to introduce into the Committee of the House a salutary Rule which existed in the Sittings of the House itself, under which a Gentleman who had moved or seconded the adjournment of the debate could not, in the same debate, move or second the same Motion. If the hon. Member's Amendment were accepted, the object of the Government would be defeated. They knew that now in Committee two 1521 Gentlemen might move alternately as often as they pleased the Motion to report Progress, and the Motion that the Chairman leave the Chair; and if there was one provision more objectionable than another, it was that which enabled a body of 4 Gentlemen—four would be quite sufficient—by alternate Motions to stop the Business of the House. Such a number might set themselves against 400, and, as regarded Business, put them at defiance; he, therefore, hoped the Amendment would not be pressed.
§ MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKsaid, he trusted his hon. Friend (Mr. Salt) would press his Amendment, for he considered the proposition of the Government the thin end of the wedge, the object of which was to sweep away all safeguards in Committee. He foresaw a time when the Government would endeavour to curtail the present privilege accorded to Members of speaking more than once in Committee. He would like to call the Prime Minister's attention to the Obstruction offered by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department, in 1879, to a Resolution resembling the 12th Resolution of the Prime Minister. Had the right hon. Gentleman been present at that time he would have been ashamed of the conduct of his Colleague. The right hon. and learned Gentleman said he objected to upsetting great Constitutional Privileges in order to get rid of petty inconvenience; it was like burning down your house to warm your hands. He (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck) should like the Prime Minister and others of his Colleagues to explain how it was they were trying to deprive Members of the privileges they had themselves exercised so often, and with such perseverance, in reference to the Royal Titles Act and other measures. At the close of last Session, when Members of the Opposition had been allowed, or persuaded, to leave the House, under the impression that the Sunday Closing Bill for Cornwall would not come on, a contrary arrangement was come to. If such a surprise as that could not be resisted, great evils would ensue, and important measures would be pushed forward at late hours, when hon. Members ought to be in bed. There was once a salutary Rule that Supply should not go on after midnight, and it would be well if it could 1522 be revived. The clôture having been adopted, the Opposition must do what they could to preserve the remaining rights of Members; and he maintained that the Amendment would afford considerable security to the independent Members of the House.
§ MR. SALTsaid, he proposed to withdraw the Amendment, and wished to explain that he had moved it under a misapprehension as to its effect, which he was informed was in accordance with the established practice of the House, that the Mover and the Seconder of Adjournment could not repeat the Motion.
§ MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, he was glad the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Salt) had consented to withdraw his Amendment; but he (Mr. Newdegate) trusted that they would not loose the whole substance of the Amendment. It seemed to him, however, that the words ought to run thus—that "no Member should be entitled to move or second any similar Motion more than once in the same debate." He thought there was a marked distinction between the proceedings on the second readings of Bills and in Committee; and why was it that that distinction was acknowledged, in the practice of the House, by Members being allowed to speak only once on the second and third readings of Bills, whilst they were allowed to speak an unlimited number of times in Committee? The reason was this—that the debate on the second and third readings was supposed to be limited to the principle or principles of the Bill—for he had known some Bills to contain more than one principle. Therefore, hon. Members were only allowed to speak once upon that stage; but when the House went into Committee on a Bill, they had to deal with a succession of important details, even if the principle of the Bill was single, and these details touched upon a great variety of subjects. It was this variety of subjects which justified the practice of allowing hon. Members to speak frequently in Committee. Now, he held that the reason for that practice ought to be remembered in the restriction contemplated, according to the intention of this Resolution, which would restrict the action of Members in Committee. It would be most inconvenient and most unjust to enact that, because a Member had spoken upon a question of adjournment, upon one 1523 clause containing totally different matter from that contained in the succeeding clauses of the measure, he should, therefore, be precluded from speaking on the treatment of subsequent clauses referring to subjects of a totally different character. It would also be most unjust to deprive a Member of his function of moving the adjournment because he had previously supported the adjournment of the debate on a totally different subject. That would be unjust on the same ground that it would be so if they deprived him of the opportunity of speaking. It would be grossly unfair if, because the same Member had spoken upon a 1st clause on the proposal to adjourn the debate, he was to be held precluded from speaking on a proposal to adjourn the debate, or to report Progress upon a 2nd clause. He would, therefore, simply suggest the striking out of the words "having spoken to any such Motion," in the 4th line, and the words "during the same sitting of the Committee," at the conclusion of the Resolution. He believed the hon. Member for Portsmouth (Sir H. Drummond Wolff) had placed a somewhat analogous Notice of Amendment on the Paper; and, that being so, he (Mr. Newdegate) would not make any Motion himself, but wait until the hon. Member had had an opportunity of addressing the House on the subject.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Amendment proposed, in line 4, to leave out "spoken to," and insert "moved or seconded."—(Sir H. Drummond Wolff.)
MR. GLADSTONEsaid, it was his duty to look to the Resolutions as a whole; and, doing so, he should be disposed to accede to the proposal of the hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir H. Drummond Wolff), as the Resolution gave other powers which would be available. He was also distinctly of opinion that another Amendment might properly be conceded, not by introducing new words, but by striking out the closing words of the Resolution, "or during the same sitting of the Committee."
§ Amendment agreed to; words inserted accordingly.
§ Amendment proposed, in line 6, omit "or during the same sitting of the Committee."—(Mr. Gladstone.)
1524§ Amendment agreed to.
§ MR. GIBSONmoved, as an Amendment, to insert in line 5, after "similar Motion," the words "if it has been negatived." The right hon. and learned Gentleman said he did so, on the ground that any Motion that had been merely put and withdrawn ought not to fall within the Rule.
§ MR. SPEAKERsaid, he would point out to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that, as line 5 had already been passed, his Motion was too late.
§ MR. GIBSONsaid, that, in that case, he would move the Amendment in the form of a Proviso.
§ MR. SPEAKERThe Rule of Debate is this—that a Member who proposes a Question to the House is considered to have spoken; and I apprehend that in the case quoted by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson)—that of a Member having so risen to address the House, and being afterwards allowed to withdraw his Motion—he will still be held to have spoken, because he has risen in his place to address the House; and I should be bound to hold that, although he was willing to withdraw his Motion, still, having risen to address the House, he should, according to the Rules of Debate, be considered to have spoken.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, he rose to move to add the following Proviso, of which he had given the Prime Minister Notice, although it was not in the Paper:—"Provided always, that this Resolution shall not apply to Debates which begin after half-past Twelve o'clock." The Amendment would in no way interfere with the Resolution as applicable to Government Business, inasmuch as all important Government Business began before half-past 12; but, on the other hand, the Proviso would meet the case of a Member who had, by a lucky accident, escaped the operation of the Half-past Twelve Rule, and had brought on late, and in a thin House, some Bill or Resolution which he was anxious to pass, and for which he might obtain the support of a small majority of the House. In that case, the only protection against Business being carried on to too late an 1525 hour was to move the adjournment of the House. He hoped the Government would accept the Amendment.
§
Amendment proposed,
At the end of the Question, to add the words "Provided always, That this Resolution shall not apply to Debates which begin after half-past Twelve of the clock."—(Mr. A. J. Balfour.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he had hoped that some hon. Member would have risen to discuss the question on behalf of the independent Members, as the Government had really very little concern in the matter, since, as the hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. A. J. Balfour) had pointed out, the Government Business that began after half-past 12 was unimportant. It was important, however, in the interests of private Members, to keep alive such chances as they at present possessed of carrying on Business after half-past 12; and he thought the Resolution, as it stood, would operate rather in favour of private Members. If the House thought the Proviso a desirable one, the Government would be sorry to bar its consideration; but there was some inconvenience and complexity in having a different set of Rules after half-past 12 from those in operation before that hour, and he doubted very much the expediency of bringing in a distinction of that kind.
§ SIR EDWARD COLEBROOKEsaid, he felt bound to oppose the Proviso, which he thought would be injurious to private Members rather than otherwise. It would only apply to cases in which Bills were not blocked.
§ MR. BRYCEsaid, he hoped earnestly that such an encouragement to Obstruction as that which the Amendment of the hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. A. J. Balfour) would afford would not be countenanced by the House. It was now almost impossible for private Members to get any legislation through the House; and that Proviso would throw additional impediments in their way. It would be better to reserve all discussion as to the Half-past Twelve Rule until they came to the Resolution specially dealing with that matter. He sincerely trusted that the House would not assent to the Amendment.
§ MR. STUART-WORTLEYsaid, he cordially supported the Amendment. He 1526 could not see that the Amendment created any obstacles to the proposals of private Members that did not exist before. He thought that the alleged complexity of keeping two sets of Rules for two different periods of the Sitting was fully justified by the changed circumstances under which the House did Business when a certain hour was passed. Before half-past 12 Members were willing to give adequate and intelligent discussion to legislative proposals. After that hour, every moment that passed diminished both that will and that power. There were upon the Statute Book monuments of the incapacity of the House to transact Business after that hour. The reason for passing Bills should be the public interest secured by the fact that the measures had been adequately discussed by persons who understood them. That was never the reason with a majority in the small hours—at that time the reason was either the unexpectedly excited hopes of a private Member, or else the desire of the Government to swell the Statute Book with quantity rather than quality. The public interest ought not to suffer for the mere satisfaction of those anxieties.
§ MR. DODSONsaid, he would not deny that some faulty legislation crept into the Statute Book after half-past 12 at night, as well as before that hour; but he would also assert that there were many valuable provisions in measures that were passed after half-past 12. The proper time, however, as he would point out, for considering all matters relating to the effect and operation of the Half-past Twelve Rule would present itself in connection with a subsequent Resolution. At present the proposed Proviso was out of place, and it would be undesirable to import it into the Rule now under discussion.
EARL PERCYsaid, that, unless some such Amendment as that were adoped, they would force private Members to block Bills far more than they did now. The Government of the day often objected to some particular and, perhaps, most important provision in a private Member's Bill; and then the Member in charge of it, in order to conciliate the Government, gave way, and thus changed the whole nature of the measure. In those circumstances, it was only by moving adjournments that a small number of Members in the House, late at 1527 night, could prevent a Bill being hurried through, without due consideration, in an entirely different shape from that in which it was at first put down on the Paper.
§ MR. H. H. FOWLERsaid, he must protest, in the interest of private Members, against the House encouraging Obstruction to the passing of private Members' Bills, and trusted that the Prime Minister would not accept the Amendment. If it was for the interest of the nation that the Government should be free from Obstruction in its efforts at legislation, so also was it that the measures proposed by Members should be fairly discussed.
§ LORD GEORGE HAMILTON, in supporting the Amendment, said, he did so because he had always been of opinion that the debates of the House were a great deal too protracted. On that ground he should support the Amendment, as the Resolution without it would act most prejudicially in relaxing the Half-past Twelve Rule.
§ MR. RAIKESrose, and said, he wished to be allowed to make a personal explanation, in reference to certain observations made in the course of that afternoon's debate. He was sorry that he was not in his place at the time to hear them. It appeared that his right hon. Friend the Member for Mid Kent (Sir William Hart Dyke), a few days ago, made some observations in dealing with the Resolution then before the House cognate to the present question, and in the course of those observations employed words which he (Mr. Raikes) thought were calculated to produce an exceedingly false impression. Those words had express relation to himself, and he understood that the Prime Minister had adverted to them that afternoon.
MR. GLADSTONEI did so in answer to the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill).
§ MR. RAIKESsaid, he would state to the House his own recollection of the circumstances referred to; and he believed his right hon. Friend the Member for Mid Kent, being himself exceedingly anxious of explaining away the false impression his words produced, would, if present, fully corroborate what he was about to say. The statement of his right hon. Friend was one in which he 1528 said his official duties during the last Parliament led to his being constantly at the elbow of the Chairman of Committees of Ways and Means, and urging him to get through the work as far as possible with regard to the views of the late Prime Minister. Well, what might be his right hon. Friend's recollection of the circumstances of course he could not divine; but he could only say that, so far as his recollection went, his right hon. Friend was, no doubt, constantly at his elbow, for the reason that he occupied a place in close proximity to the Chair, and of his right hon. Friend being obliged constantly to pass in and out of the House. But if his right hon. Friend ever made any suggestion to him (Mr. Raikes) that he ought to depart from his duty in conducting the Business of the House, with a view of consulting the convenience of the Prime Minister, or of anybody else, he could only say that he most decidedly had no recollection whatever of such a suggestion. If it were made, it certainly never received the slightest attention from him. In illustration of that, he might mention that he did not recollect any occasion, except one, on which there was any act of Ministerial interference with him in the discharge of his duty. On one occasion, shortly after he was appointed to the Chair, he called on the right hon. Member for South-West Lancashire, then Secretary of State for the Home Department, as "Mr. Cross." Very shortly afterwards the Prime Minister wrote those words on a piece of paper, and handed it to him. The words were as follows:—"The Secretary of State should be styled by the Chairman 'Mr. Secretary Cross.'" That, he believed, was the only occasion when any attempt was made to interfere with his action. Now came the sequel to it. The next time he had an opportunity of meeting Mr. Disraeli in the Lobby he (Mr. Raikes) said to him—"Sir, I am obliged to you for the hint you gave me yesterday as to the performance of my duties; but in this, as in all matters, I think it right to follow the example and practice of Mr. Speaker." He felt confident that his right hon. Friend the Member for Mid Kent would, on reflection, if he were present, concur in every word he had now said, for his right hon. Friend, like himself, had no wish but to maintain the character of 1529 the Chair in that House with perfect honour and independence.
§ Question put.
§ The House divided:—Ayes 62; Noes 145: Majority 83.—(Div. List, No. 370.)
§ And it being a quarter of an hour before Six of the clock, Further Proceeding on Main Question, as amended, stood adjourned till To-morrow.
§ House adjourned at five minutes before Six o'clock.