[ADJOURNED DEBATE.] [EIGHTH NIGHT.]

HC Deb 26 October 1882 vol 274 cc213-66

Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Amendment proposed to Question [20th February], That when it shall appear to Mr. Speaker, or to the Chairman of a Committee of the whole House, during any Debate, to be the evident sense of the House, or of the Committee, that the Question be now put, he may so inform the House or the Committee; and, if a Motion be made 'That the Question be now put,' Mr. Speaker, or the Chairman, shall forthwith put such Question; and, if the same be decided in the affirmative, the Question under discussion shall be put forthwith: Provided that the Question shall not be decided in the affirmative, if a Division be taken, unless it shall appear to have been supported by more than two hundred Members, or unless it shall appear to have been opposed by less than forty Members and supported by more than one hundred Members."—(Mr. Gladstone.)

And which Amendment was, In lines 1 and 2, to leave out the words "or to the Chairman of a Committee of the whole House."—(Sir Henry Drummond Wolff.)

Question again proposed, "That the words 'or to the Chairman of' stand part of the Question."

MR LEWIS

said, he rose to support the Amendment of the hon. Member for Portsmouth. The most important thing to be dealt with was the Obstruction which they met with in Committee, where the "monster" had been most successful and most disastrous in its results; and he claimed for himself an honest desire to participate in any measure that would really have the effect of putting down that Obstruction. He could not help thinking, however, that the particular mode in which this Obstruction was dealt with by the whole scheme of the Government was most unsatisfactory, and was likely to lead to entire disappointment and be ineffectual. Supposing that Obstruction of a most serious and absolute character was attempted by some Members of the House on a Motion that certain words be omitted from a clause, and the Chairman, by the exercise of this authority, closed the debate, did the House believe that would put an end to the Obstruction? Would it net be the cause of irritation, and rather lead to increased Obstruction subsequently than bringing things into a satisfactory state? An observation fell from the Attorney General which struck him as rather remarkable. Dealing with the question as to whether the casual Chairmen should be allowed to exercise the same power as the ordinary Chairman of Ways and Means, he made use of the remark that the Chairman of Ways and Means would not be compelled to leave the Chair to the tender mercies of the casual Chairmen, because, by the operation of this Rule, there would be an end to Obstruction, and, therefore, the necessity for those long Sittings would not arise. But what was Obstruction? Why, it might arise 200 or 300 times in the course of an evening in Committee; and, therefore, the idea of the Chairman having the power to put au end to Obstruction upon one Amendment, having a real tendency to advance the progress of the whole Business of the Committee, seemed to him entirely contrary to the ordinary experience of the House. For his own part, he believed the real remedy with regard to Obstruction in Committee was rather to be found in the Amendment of the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin) and in that of his hon. Friend the Member for East Sussex (Mr. Gregory). Take that of his hon. Friend the Member for East Sussex. He was not entitled to discuss the question now; but he thought they might find some remedy for Obstruction in Committee by putting an end to the ridiculous power of speaking any number of times upon the idea that it was securing free and open discussion. If they were to limit the power of any Member to speak any number of times upon any Amendment, and otherwise shorten the proceedings of the Committee, it appeared to him, speaking without any partizanship whatever, that that would be much more likely to be successful than the course proposed by the Government in this Resolution. It was a common idea, especially with hon. Gentlemen opposite, that Obstruction began with his right hon. Friend the Member for North Lincolnshire (Mr. J. Lowther), the right hon. and learned Member for Whitehaven (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck), and the hon. Member for Knaresborough (Mr. T. Collins). He would read to the House an extract from a letter of Lord Palmerston, written in 1844, set out in Ashley's life of that statesman, page 464. He there said— The experience that they" (the then Government) "had on the Irish Arms Bill must have shown them that a compact body of opponents may, by debating every sentence and word of a Bill, so obstruct it that a whole Session is scarcely long enough for carrying through one measure; and, of course, the Irish Members on our side, and all the English and Scotch Radicals, would sit from 'morn till eve and from eve till dewy morn' to prevent any more stringent law being enacted. That showed that the Obstruction with which they had to deal had been in existence for a period of at least 40 years. He confessed that it appeared to him that the instrument they proposed to forge by that Resolution was either too blunt or too sharp, and for this reason—namely, that the probable effect of using it would be to render the Obstructionists more crafty and determined, and thus to bring about delay rather than progress. It was perfectly ridiculous to imagine that Members would consent to the Chairman of Committees stifling discussion every three or four hours. Such a power was impracticable, and would break down and appear ridiculous in the hands of the Chairman of Committees. The House was placed in a somewhat peculiar position with regard to the Amendment of the hon. Member for Portsmouth, which proposed to leave out the words "Chairman of a Committee of the Whole House." The Prime Minister had said that he intended to deal with the very question which was involved in the Amendment; but they had not heard from him how he intended to do so, and the House was not, therefore, placed in a position to deal effectually with the Amendment. He knew the right hon. Gentleman would tell them that they would have an opportunity of debating and of voting against the Resolution when it assumed its complete form; but surely they were entitled to ask for some information from the Government as to the character and extent of the alteration which they proposed to make in the part of the Resolution which was attacked by the Amendment. Was ever so distinguished an Assembly placed in a more ridiculous position by its Leader?

MR. GLADSTONE

said, perhaps the hon. Gentleman would allow him to explain. His hon. Friend the Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. E. Stanhope) had stated in his speech that he (Mr. Gladstone) had previously agreed to the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Preston (Mr. Raikes), which stood next on the Paper. On reference to the reports, he found that he had made that statement; and, therefore, he was now prepared to take that course.

MR. LEWIS

said, that in that case there would be no provision for casual Chairmen. It appeared to him that they were going from bad to worse, for frequently when a casual Chairman occupied the Chair it would be more necessary than at any other time to make use of the power proposed to be given. That proved to his mind the extreme good sense of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Devon (Sir Stafford Northcote) when he said that it was impossible, in the varying conditions of the House and Committee, to provide for these evils by one Resolution. In the case of the Speaker they had not a political official to deal with; but the Chairman of Ways and Means was usually a man of strong Party bias, who was constantly to be seen in one Lobby or the other. In the event of any great question involving heated feeling, such as the disestablishment of the Church, coming before the Committee, would it be satisfactory for the Chairman, who might have taken a foremost part in bringing forward the subject, to exercise the new and most obnoxious power which it was now proposed to confer upon him of enforcing the clôture upon, perhaps, half of the Members present? The truth was that the whole of the 1st Resolution was founded upon a misconception. The circumstances attendant upon each of the coups d' état that had occurred in that House when Members had been deprived of the right of free discussion had been most unfortunate. It would not, of course, do to admit that the Chairman had made a mistake; but the fact remained that the Members of that House had been punished for offences which had been committed during their absence. When he first entered that House it would have been morally impossible for any man to have stood up and defied it for five minutes together, and Obstruction had arisen from the fact that new Members neglected to learn their first Parliamentary lesson—namely, that their respect was due to the remaining 651 Members. It had, however, in some instances been asserted that the object of the Government in imposing the change upon the House was not to put down Obstruction, but, as a Liberal Marquess had stated to his constituents the other day, to force through certain political nostrums which were obnoxious to the Conservative Party, and which, unless that change was effected, they did not see their way to carry. That was why they were suspicious about this measure. He doubted if the Liberals could gain any benefit or credit with their Party or the country if such were their motives. At all events, even if they were beaten in this matter, the Conservatives would have the satisfaction of knowing that they were endeavouring to support true and genuine freedom.

MR. JOSEPH COWEN

said, complaint was made at the close of the Sitting of the previous day that the discussion on the Resolution was unfairly spun out. He did not think so. Many of the Members had come to London at this season at great inconvenience, and all, he believed, with reluctance. They bad no desire to remain longer than was absolutely necessary for getting through the Business the Government had sum- moned Parliament to transact. There was no wish, so far as he knew, in any part of the House to beat out the debates unduly or to delay the inevitable. If they were to be compelled to swallow the nauseous draught the Cabinet had compounded for them, the sooner it was over the better. There were some points that must be discussed, and discussed in detail and with minuteness, and one of them was the Amendment before the House. It was one of the most important Amendments to the 1st Rule. He had had its importance vividly impressed upon his mind by a notable circumstance that took place earlier in the Session. During the discussion on the Coercion Bill he left the House one evening at 10 o'clock. He was accompanied by an hon. Friend of his—a Member for an Irish county. They both left unconscious that they had committed any offence against the Rules of the House. Returning the next morning, between 9 and 10 o'clock, his hon. Friend found that in his absence he had been tried and condemned at the instance of the Chairman of Committees. He had a high opinion of the fairness of the House of Commons. He did not believe that, consciously, the House would do an injustice to any man; but he must say that that transaction had left a more unpleasant impression upon his mind as to the length partisanship could be carried by an official than anything he had seen since he had been a Member. The hon. Friend to whom he was referring was condemned for proceedings that took place in his absence, and when a casual Chairman was presiding; but the punishment was inflicted upon him at the instance of the Chairman of Committees, who did not witness the conduct he complained of, and who dogmatically and decisively pronounced judgment upon facts he was unaware of. He should oppose, therefore, most strenuously the giving of the Chairman of Committees such powers as the Resolution proposed to confer. He agreed with the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Lewis) when he said that no number of Rules would ever do away with Obstruction. If the House was to assume the regular and orderly character that the Government seemed to think it had lost, it could only be accomplished by a better spirit and a higher tone pervading the entire Assembly. They did not keep order in the streets by the laws or policemen, but because the mass of the citizens knew that it was their interest and their duty to contribute to its maintenance. They gave and took in their intercourse with their neighbours, and did not punctiliously stand upon points so long as substantial justice and fair-play were observed. It should be the same way in the House of Commons. But the Rules had been enforced against a section of the Members so strictly that that feeling had been destroyed. It was by its restoration, and not by any Rules such as the Prime Minister had proposed, that the Legislature would reach that position of effectiveness that they all desired to see it attain. There were certain points respecting the Amendment on which they were all agreed. First, they all admitted that the position of the Speaker was superior to that of the Chairman of Committees. The Speaker was a semi-judicial officer. He was raised above the ordinary influences of partizanship. He could be intrusted with, and was supposed to exercise, his power with absolute impartiality. The Chairman, however, held a different position. He was a partizan. He mingled with Members in the Lobbies and in the Corridors, voted in Divisions, and performed the ordinary functions of a Party Member. It was impossible to suppose that he was not influenced by his daily contact with his Colleagues. This was admitted; and, strangely enough, the Prime Minister, when admitting it, drew, from it an argument in favour of conferring upon the inferior officer the exceptional power. It was the most extraordinary reasoning he had ever listened to. The right hon. Gentleman arrived at the conclusion by contending that as the Chairman was an inferior officer he would feel his responsibility, know that his conduct was keenly scrutinized, and would be excessively careful in giving his decisions. Now, he (Mr. Joseph Cowen) supposed that tortuous mode of reasoning had its influence; but he owned that he could not follow it. On another point they were also agreed—that the Obstruction to the Business of the House took place chiefly in Committee. The subjects that were there discussed, and the Rules that obtained, supplied inducements and opportunities which did not exist in the House generally. They admitted these three points, therefore—that the Chairman was an inferior officer, that he was a partizan, and that at the time he presided Obstruction was most rife. They gave the Speaker power to close the debate by a simple majority. He said they gave that power; but it was very questionable whether that was conferred in an unqualified sense, for the Rule as it stood was a complete puzzle. Some friends of his contended that they could extract 16 different meanings from it. But, be that as it might, under the Rule no doubt the intention was that the Speaker should have the power of initiating the closing of a discussion, and to close it by a bare majority. It might be right or it might be wrong to give the Speaker that power. He thought it was wrong. He, however, was not arguing that point then. But surely it was not right to give the same power to the inferior officer and the partizan that they gave to the judicial officer. The best way to deal with the matter would be, as suggested by the Leader of the Opposition, to divide the duties of the two, and make one Code of Rules for the Speaker, and another Code for the Chairman. But the Government refused to do that. He would make a further suggestion—that if the Speaker was to be empowered to close the discussion by a bare majority, the Chairman of Committees should only be empowered to close it by a majority of two-thirds or three-fourths. By that means the highest officer would have power to deal in the House in one way, and the inferior officer would deal in Committee in another. He did not know whether the Government would accept his suggestion; but he was quite sure, if they could see their way to do so, it would shorten the discussion and facilitate the passage of their Regulations.

MR. R. H. PAGET

said, he thought the suggestions of the hon. Member who had just addressed the House were worthy of consideration. He was of opinion, however, that if the debate upon the Procedure Rules was to proceed at the same pace in the future as in the past two days, it was impossible to imagine when the House could get through the discussion of them. The debate had already lasted too long. It was in the power of the Government to put a stop to it, if they chose, by announcing their intention to revert to their Resolution of a few months ago, and to give up the clôture by a bare majority. The debate at present was unreal. They were conscious of what mystic writers called "a presence" among them which, though unseen, was felt by all—that presence was the bare majority Rule, of which they, none of them, could get rid. He would therefore suggest that the Government should give up that Rule altogether; and he believed that if hon. Members opposite who were known to dislike it would boldly speak out their opinions they would greatly assist in bringing that about. The intention of the Prime Minister to accept the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Preston (Mr. Raikes), with the addition of certain Rules by which the House would be enabled to invest casual Chairmen of Committees with the powers of the regular Chairman, made it clear that the whole subject would have to be re-opened; in which case it would not be desirable to pass what was necessarily an incomplete Resolution. If the Chairman of Ways and Means was to possess the same powers as the Speaker, it would be logically necessary to place casual Chairmen in the same position, and, he supposed, the Chairmen of Grand Committees also—unless in Grand Committees Obstruction was never likely to impede the proceedings—otherwise they would have this "curious" spectacle, a spectacle of perfect order while the Chairman of Ways and Means was in the Chair, and should he be ill, or absent from other causes, absolute disorder under the presidency of his locum tenens. If on that side of the House so considerable a change was opposed, it was not to be presumed that such opposition was in the interests of Obstruction. Their desire was, not that Obstruction should continue, but that it should be put down by other and better methods. He would only add a hope that Her Majesty's Government, by reverting to the compromise agreed to by them some months ago, would remove the difficulty in which their proposals had placed the House.

CAPTAIN AYLMER

said, that the position of the Chairman of Ways and Means was responsible, but indefinite. At any rate, he had found no definition of it in any of the Regulations of the House, except in that which provided for the performance of his duty as Deputy Speaker. The fact was that the Committees of the House might be presided over by any Member except when the House was in Committee of Ways and Means. The Chairman of Ways and Means had no prescriptive or statutory right to preside in Committees other than those of Ways and Means. They had the highest authority for that, because the Speaker, in answer to a question on the point, had stated that—"It was arranged that ordinarily the Chairman of Ways and Means should take the Chair on Government Bills and sometimes on other Bills." And, again, in answer to another question, the Speaker said—"It has been the invariable custom of this House for many years to allow any Member of the House to take the Chair on a Bill." And the statement of the Speaker was confirmed by the Prime Minister, who said that—"It was Sir Robert Peel who first induced Mr. Greene to take the Chair on certain Committees, but not on all. "The consequence was that an hon. Member below the Gangway immediately gave Notice that the next time the Chairman of Ways and Means was absent he would move that the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar) should take the Chair. He did not know that the House would wish that the power of clôture should be put into the hands of the hon. Member for Cavan. They were asked now to consent that the most stringent Rule ever proposed in any Parliament should be intrusted to any chance Member who might be Chairman of a Committee. The Chairman of Ways and Means was always a Member of the Party in power, and looked to that Party for promotion; and on that ground alone there was good reason for rejecting the proposal of the Government, and for adopting the Amendment of the hon. Member for Portsmouth.

MR. GORST

said, that the debate had been singularly remarkable for silence and for ignorance—entire ignorance on the part of Her Majesty's Government of the scheme they had submitted, and persistent refusal to answer questions put by what was called "the inquiring Party." Except the hon. Member for Salford (Mr. Arthur Arnold), only two other supporters of the Government had spoken, and of these, one had wisely excused himself from voting at all, because he did not know what he would be voting about; and the other, the hon. Member for North Lanarkshire (Sir Edward Colebrooke), would give a hypothetical vote—he would vote for the Government if they amended the Resolution which they had put on the Paper. With these exceptions, all their other supporters, rising young barristers and others, held their tongues. And yet it was but rarely that a young politician below the Gangway got an opportunity of supporting by a speech a Ministerial proposal. He had sat below the Treasury Bench, and he knew that to be the case. Why was it that they had been thus silent? Simply because they did not know what the Resolution was. But there was another Party—the Party which usually sat behind him, but which was now apparently at dinner—whose silence was remarkable. It was simply in consequence of the exuberant and persistent rhetoric of those hon. Members that the clôture was demanded. It was common talk that the côdture was aimed, not at the Conservatives, but at the Gentlemen who came from Ireland. Their privileges of speech were to be curtailed, and they had nearly all felt the rod wielded by the Chairman of Committees. It was, therefore, wonderful that only one of their number should have spoken on the present occasion. Why had they been silent? The hon. Member for Carlow (Mr. Dawson) had let "the cat out of the bag" by saying that the Irish Members took little interest in the question of the clôture because their presence in that House would only last a short time. He would like to know how the Government had "squared" the hon. Members from Ireland. Had the Government tampered with them by promising them a separate Parliament on College Green? [Cries of "Question!" and "Order!"] He asked the Government to tell the House whether the hon. Member for Carlow had founded his observation on any real fact? [SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: Question, Question!] He was not surprised at the impatience of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary—

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

I rise to Order. I would ask you, Sir, whether the hon. and learned Member has yet said one word in reference to the Amendment before the House? [Cries of"Oh!"]

MR. CHAPLIN

also rose to Order. Was the right hon. and learned Gentleman in Order in interrupting another Member with a statement?

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

said, he had made no statement.

MR. CHAPLIN

replied, that the right hon. and learned Gentleman had in effect stated that the hon. and learned Member for Chatham had not said a word in reference to the Amendment.

MR. SPEAKER

The hon. and learned Member for Chatham is reviewing the debate which has taken place. I do not think it right to interpose.

MR. GORST

said, he felt no surprise at the displeasure shown by the Home Secretary at his line of argument. The right hon. and learned Gentleman was very anxious that he should speak within the four corners of the Resolution; but what was the Question before the House? His own supporter, the hon. Member for Berkshire (Mr. Walter), could not tell what it was. The Government maintained an obstinate silence. If they were all as sensible as the hon. Member for Berkshire, they would follow his example and walk out of the House, and leave the Government to settle the matter in a Commission consisting of themselves. [The SOLICITOR GENERAL: Hear, hear!] The Government had not told them what the power was which they were asked to intrust to the Chairman of Committees. How could the House decide to grant the power before they knew what it was to be? He understood that casual Chairmen were not to have the power. How, then, were Chairmen of that kind to preserve order? The hon. and learned Attorney General had said that when once the Rules were passed they would never see a casual Chairman. Surely that was an absurd statement. Could the Attorney General guarantee the perpetual health of the Chairman of Ways and Means? Then the Government had refused to say what was to he done in the case of Grand Committees. The House ought to be placed in possession of the scheme they were told the Government were going to produce. It was all very well for the Government to draw upon the faith of their own supporters; but they had no right to draw upon the faith of the Opposition. What he would advise the Government to do—and he tendered the advice with the greatest possible deference and humility—was first to make up their own minds as to what it was they intended, and then to rise frankly and explain the scheme to the House.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

said, that the position of Chairmen of Grand Committees and of casual Chairmen could not properly be discussed in connection with the Amendment before the House. With respect to Chairmen of Grand Committees, the Government had stated that they were not to be invested with the power of closure. The leading organ of public opinion had stated that Grand Committees would be nests of Obstruction if that power were not given to the presiding Members. But it should be borne in mind that the Bills which would be referred to Grand Committees would not be measures likely to provoke Obstruction. If Obstruction should arise, the proper course would be to report the fact to the House, with the intimation that the Committee could not deal satisfactorily with the Bill. The main point now was whether the Chairman of Ways and Means should have the power which they proposed to give to the Speaker. The case sought to be made out by the Opposition in support of the Amendment had been conclusively answered from their own side of the House in the speech of the right hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Raikes), who had repudiated the idea that the Chairman of Committees was a political creature, and had vindicated the dignity of that high Office. The right hon. Gentleman had shown that the powers intrusted to the Speaker must be vested in his permanent Representative; and, therefore, until that speech was answered, notwithstanding the taunts of hon. Gentlemen opposite, he saw no reason why they on the Liberal side of the House should waste the time of the House in discussing the question.

MR. GIBSON

said, he was very glad that at last they had had a speech from the independent Benches on the opposite Bide, for if there was not a conspiracy of silence, or a confederacy of muteness on the other side of the House, there was, at all events, an extraordinary coincidence which brought forth no debate. He always heard the hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler) with very great pleasure on account of the great ability with which he spoke, though he did not always agree with him. He had listened to the whole course of this debate with some knowledge, and with considerable attention; and he was bound to say that, with the terms of the 1st Resolution before him, and having had the benefit of this debate in the earlier part of the Session, he never heard anything more relevant than the speeches made from the Opposition Benches. Now, bearing in mind that the Prime Minister announced at least three times since they had assembled that the House had been summoned at this exceptional and inconvenient period to resume its labours for the purposes affecting the efficiency and repute of the House, it would be reasonable to demand that they should have been summoned, at all events, to a fair debate. He did not think it was legitimate, he did not think it was wise, to indicate to the country that the Government had summoned their followers for a mechanical function of voting. He hoped that as the debates proceeded they would sometimes have an expression of the independent views of independent Members. This debate might not have taken place, or might have been shortened, if the Government had not altered their views with reference to a two-thirds' vote as a substitute for a bare majority. The powers that were proposed after the communication of the Prime Minister in May last were the powers of initiating a clôture on a two-thirds' majority. That was an intelligible and regulated power. That power he might have been willing to assent to, not because he liked it, but because, having regard to all the circumstances, it was a matter that could not be further contested. But the Prime Minister had thought it right to propose a bare majority; and now they had to consider the depository of this vast power of initiating clôture by a bare majority. They were bound to regard jealously and with the greatest possible suspicion the person to whom they gave that power. He was unwilling to give that power even to the Speaker, or to any of those who might succeed him. He recognized the logic of facts, and was aware that previous discussions had indicated that some form of power or other might be given by Resolutions of the House, and that they had passed Votes which they were prevented from challenging. Upon the question whether the power that was given to the Speaker as to the initiative of the closure of a debate should be extended to the Chairman of Ways and Means, it was necessary to consider what had been the distinction existing between those who held the high Office of Speaker and those who held the honourable, but not so high, Office of Chairman of Committees. The distinction was obvious. The Speaker was the first Commoner in the Realm. The second Commoner in the Realm, he (Mr. Gibson) believed, was the right hon. Secretary of State for the Home Department. Now, no one would put the Speaker and the Chairman of Committees in the same category. The former was given a pension to indicate that he was placed beyond the slightest obligation of looking again to Office or any public employment. In addition to that, by public usage, he was entitled to the offer of a Peerage, so that the broadest distinction was drawn between him and the Chairman of Committees. The idea that had been suggested that anyone who filled the subordinate and temporary Office of Chairman of Committees could be regarded in the slightest degree as being in a position resembling that of the Speaker struck him as nonsense. Speakers on one or two occasions had descended from their high Office and become a Prime Minister, or Secretary of State; but, as a rule, the Speaker's high Office was well recognized by himself, as well as those surrounding him, as the goal of their ambition in that House. As regarded the Office of Chairman of Committees, he had no doubt the duties of that Office were discharged in a perfectly proper and upright manner, and no one recognized more than he (Mr. Gibson) did the high character of the right hon. Gentleman who had filled the Office of Chairman of Committees; but the House knew the operation of strong political opinion. Was the power to be confined to the Speaker and Chairman of Ways and Means, or was it to be extended to any casual Chairman? He listened to the debate of last night, and he read the report in The Times of the speech of the President of the Local Government Board, who spoke with immense authority on this subject, both as a Cabinet Minister and as having himself filled the Office of Chairman of Com- mittees. And these were the words of the right hon. Gentleman— The Government felt that in a long Committee of the Whole House it might be absolutely necessary that a Chairman who temporarily relieved the regular Chairman should be able to take the initiative in regard to closing the debate. On behalf of the Government, he wished to say that if they were allowed to dispose of the present Amendment, and to reach that of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Preston, the Government would then be prepared to make a proposal, with regard to these temporary Chairmen, which they hoped might meet the views of the House. Was not the meaning of these words that yesterday the Cabinet were of opinion that it was necessary that the temporary, casual Chairman should be enabled to take the initiative in regard to closure? If that was the view of the Government yesterday, what was their view to-day? He was entitled to have an answer to that question. Was the view which the President of the Local Government Board expressed yesterday the view which the Government entertained now, or had they during the night changed their minds? He wanted to know whether the view which bad been expressed yesterday by the President of the Local Government Board represented the view of the Government that day?

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

If the right hon. and learned Gentleman will allow me, I will give him an answer.

MR. GIBSON

I would prefer the President of the Local Government Board, who spoke the words, to reply.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

If the right hon. and learned Gentleman does not wish an explanation, I will not give it.

MR. GIBSON

said, he would yield to the Home Secretary, although he did not consider it regular for one Cabinet Minister to explain what another Cabinet Minister meant.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

complained that he had been treated with incivility, and denied that he rose to reply for another Cabinet Minister, but simply in answer to the right hon. and learned Gentleman's question as to Cabinet changes. The right hon. and learned Gentleman had charged the Cabinet with having changed their minds. The right hon. and learned Gentleman had read what the President of the Local Government said; but he did not read what the Prime Minister afterwards said. The Prime Minister stated that he was willing to accept the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Preston (Mr. Raikes), which expressly confined this power to the Chairman of Ways and Means. The words were so expressed, and left no room for misunderstanding, and he was astonished that the right hon. and learned Gentleman should have misunderstood them.

MR. GIBSON

said, he was quite ready to receive any explanation from the right hon. and learned Gentleman; but he did not think that the Home Secretary had at all mended the aspect of affairs. Yesterday the Cabinet was represented by the Prime Minister, the Home Secretary, and the President of the Local Government Board. He had quoted from the utterances of the President of the Local Government Board, which expressed, with the greatest significance and clearness, the judgment of the Cabinet. Later on, the Prime Minister was told by the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. E. Stanhope) that he had given a pledge that he would accept the Amendment of the right hon. Member for Preston. That the Prime Minister did not deny, and pointed out that it was intended to bring forward some simple Rules of the House with reference to casual Chairmen; but he never withdrew in terms the unqualified and open language of the President of the Local Government Board. He wished to know whether the House was to assume from the statement of the Home Secretary, that they were to hear no more as to the casual Chairman having any power whatever under this Rule?

MR. DODSON

The right hon. and learned Gentleman is quite right in saying not under this Rule.

MR. GIBSON

said, that he put a more favourable construction upon the Home Secretary's words. He understood from the Home Secretary that after the Prime Minister's statement they were to be assured that no one, except the appointed Chairman of Ways and Means, could ever have power to use the clôture. He was now told by the President of the Local Government Board that that was not so, and that it was intended to give them their powers under another Rule. If that were so, he would like to know what was the difference between the statement of the Cabinet that day and their statement yesterday? He understood the Home Secretary to state that they had no longer the right to rely upon the statement of the President of the Local Government Board, in consequence of the Prime Minister's acceptance, in a qualified way, of the Amendment of the right hon. Member for Preston. Now, he was given to understand that under another Rule the casual Chairmen were to have the power of closure. If that were so, then the Prime Minister accepted an Amendment, and killed it by a Rule subsequently framed. He hoped the Cabinet would think over the matter in the night, and endeavour to arrive at some conclusion which would, at all events, be capable of being easily apprehended by a moderate understanding. One word as to the statement of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler) with reference to Grand Committees. He did not think the hon. Member did justice to the arguments of the noble Lord who introduced that topic. It was true that the matter was not in the terms of this Resolution; but it was a legitimate test by which to measure how this Rule would work, to see whether the Government had examined into all their operations so as to make them one coherent whole. If the Government had not until yesterday considered what was to be the position of Chairmen of Grand Committees it showed that they had not considered this matter in anything like an exhaustive way. If the Chairmen of Grand Committees were not to have these powers, then, as Bills were to be delegated to these Committees for all purposes, a large scope was left for the Obstruction which it was so necessary to check. The Prime Minister had said more than once that the Grand Committees were only a kind of experiment; but unless the Rules on that subject were presented in a more defined shape they would be likely to give rise to a considerable amount of discussion. Before the debate closed, he was bound to say that hon. Members opposite had done nothing to prevent its closing from its very opening. He would venture to suggest that it would keep up appearances better, and give the discussion more the semblance of a debate, if some representative speakers were put forward on the other side.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL)

said, that the reason for summoning Parliament at that time was the necessity of putting some check upon the licence of debate. He had always understood that hon. Members opposite were of opinion that the time had arrived when the Rules of Debate of that House should be altered. That, at all events, was the view of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Devon, when he brought forward his Resolutions with regard to Obstruction; and matters had not mended since. There were now 116 Amendments upon the Paper, and if hon. Members all spoke upon this Amendment it was difficult to see when the debate would close. Yet they were taunted because hon. Members on that side of the House had not followed the example of those on the other side in discussing this Amendment at length, however much their speeches might have been mere repetition. Nothing was to be gained by useless repetition. It was of no use making speeches on this side of the House, repeating over and over again the same answers. Indeed, if the right hon. and learned Gentleman who had just sat down had listened to the debate as carefully as he said he had done, he would have discovered that many of the speeches made upon his own side answered one another. For instance, they had been told over and over again that the proposal to invest the Chairman of Committees with the power of initiating the clôture was something terribly dangerous; but the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Lewis) had that night said that it was a very harmless proposal indeed. According to his (the Solicitor General's) understanding, debate meant using argument with a view to convincing hon. Members, and answering argument which had not yet been answered. He adhered to that definition; and would say, moreover, that such arguments as had been used on the other side of the House had been fully and effectually answered on this. That might be a benighted view, but that was the view taken on this side of the House; and that was the reason they did not enter into a long discussion. With respect to the argument based on the difference in the position occupied by the Speaker and that occupied by the Chairman of Committees, on which so much stress had been laid, he did not see much force in it; for when the power was given to the Speaker to Name an hon. Member for wilful Obstruction and disregard for the authority of the Chair, the same power was given to the Chairman of Committees. [An hon. MEMBER: Subject to appeal.] The hon. Member said, "Subject to appeal." That was to say, the Speaker was called into the Chair to put the Question to the House again. Did the hon. Gentleman think there was any protection in that? If so, he would tell him that it was a protection of a most shadowy description. The power of Naming Members initiated the proceedings, for all the rest depended on the vote of the House. The same thing would take place here. Neither the Speaker nor the Chairman of Committees could close the debate. All that was proposed was that he should have the power of initiating the Motion; the ultimate decision would rest with the House. He did not think it possible to find a case of closing by the Chairman in which it would not be possible to raise the same question again before the House. For instance, if there was an undue stoppage of the discussion in Committee of Supply, the question might be raised on Report; or if, in the case of a Bill, there were no Report, then there might be a discussion upon the third reading. If there was to be a closing power at all—and the House had decided that there should be—it would be idle to give that power to the Speaker only, and to refuse it to the Chairman of Committees. He had heard the hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. J. Cowen) say that on the question of Obstruction reliance must be placed upon the spirit and feeling of the House. He wished it were possible to rely upon the spirit and feeling of the House. The time had gone by for doing so. He thought they had now arrived at a position for the determination of this question. It had been said that if the Government told hon. Members what it was they proposed to do, the House would know how to vote; but they had had the plainest intimation of what was to be done. Then, with regard to the question of the casual Chairmen, the Prime Minister had said that that question would be separately dealt with.

MR. E. STANHOPE

What the Prime Minister said was that he would adopt the Amendment of the right hon. Member for Preston. Since then he had suggested some modification, and now he has gone back again.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL)

All the right hon. Gentleman said was that that question would be dealt with as a matter by itself. This question of the casual Chairmen was a sort of red herring drawn across the path for the purpose of prolonging this debate, the speeches of hon. Members opposite consisting in asking at one moment what was the use of giving that power to the Chairman unless it was also given to the casual Chairmen, and at the next moment saying what a monstrous thing it would be to give them such a power. The Government had no desire to confuse the issue, but to keep to the plain issue as it arose upon each Amendment.

MR. GIBSON

asked leave, by the indulgence of the House, to read the statement made by the Prime Minister on May 1, as reported in Hansard. The right hon. Gentleman said— I will take this opportunity of stating in regard to the Notice given to-night by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Preston (Mr. Raikes), which proposes to recognize the Chairman of Ways and Means—being an Officer of the House—but to wholly exclude from the operation of the Resolution casual Chairmen—Chairmen pro hac vice—that it is an Amendment that I think perfectly reasonable, and one that we are prepared to accede to."—[3 Hansard, cclxviii. 1900.]

SIR JOHN MOWBRAY

said, he yielded to no man in his desire to restore the fair fame of the House of Commons and to restrain undue licence of debate; and, therefore, he approached that question in no Party spirit, and with every wish, as far as he possibly could, to support the propositions of the Government. But he found himself very much in the position described the other day by his hon. Friend the Member for Berkshire (Mr. Walter), who said that the cart was now being put before the horse. Indeed, it seemed to him that the horse had been led out and was being put into the shafts without its being understood what sort of a cart, whether a light or a heavy one, it was to have attached to it; and, however inconvenient it might be to the Treasury Bench to be interrogated as to their intentions, he felt that, until he knew under what circumstances the power given by the Resolution would be vested either in the Speaker or in the Chairman of Committees, he was unable to give a vote on the particular question before the House. He could not vote with the hon. Member for Portsmouth (Sir H. Drummond Wolff), because he thought there was great force in what was said as to the necessity of putting down Obstruction in Committee, and that they would be dealing with only a part of the question if they did not deal with Obstruction in Committee. He also felt that the Chairman of Committees, though undoubtedly not so high an officer as the Speaker, was yet, in many respects, clothed with much of the dignity and authority of the latter; but he asked what was to be the majority on which the clôture was to be put in force? And, until he knew that, he was unable to vote with respect to this proposition. On the 6th of May the Prime Minister told them that he accepted the proposition of the right hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson). That concession had since been withdrawn; but on Tuesday night the Prime Minister made a speech of apparently a conciliatory character, which left them a hope that some compromise might yet be come to on the matter. He did not even now abandon that hope, notwithstanding the attitude assumed by the Solicitor General, who, though an able exponent of the views of the Government, was not in the secrets of the Cabinet; and the Cabinet seemed not yet to have quite made up their own minds on the subject. If they would allow the question to be decided by the real judgment of the House, without Party feeling being brought to bear upon it, he felt confident that they would arrive at the decision that the clôture should only be applied by a proportionate majority—say, of three-fourths or two-thirds, but not by a bare majority. Then he should be willing to give that authority to the Chairman of Committee of Ways and Means. With regard to casual Chairmen of Committees, he did not think it was dragging a red herring across the path to raise that point. On the contrary, the question which had been put in regard to it was a fair one, and one which they were entitled to have answered. Casual Chairmen had to be called in to act at all-night Sit- tings—occasions when the clôture might have to be put into operation; and, therefore, it was right that the House should know what the intention of the Government was in respect to those cases. In regard to the Chairmen of Standing Committees, he did not think the matter was of so much importance, because he hardly thought the Government would propose to confer that power on them, the proposed appointment of these Committees being only an experiment. In conclusion, if the proposal of the Government was that the clôture was to be enforced by a bare majority, he should feel bound to vote against the Resolution, whether the power was to be exercised by the Speaker or by the Chairman of Committees. But if, as he hoped, the decision of the House would be that it should only be applied by the vote of a fair proportionate majority, then he should think that the Chairman of Committees should be clothed with the same authority as the Speaker for initiating it.

MR. SALT

said, there was a very unnecessary, though by no means unnatural, feeling on the part of many Members on the other side that the discussions on the clôture were being carried to an unseemly and unnecessary length. He, however, rose to put before the House no Party considerations whatever, but some very practical reasons why it was absolutely necessary that they should proceed very cautiously, and possibly very slowly. They were now dealing with a matter of the greatest importance with regard both to the past history of the House and to the future management of the House by means of Resolutions. They were, in fact, thus dealing with a matter of far greater importance than three-fourths of the Bills which were introduced into the House; and they might incautiously pass some sentence in a Resolution which, when passed, would be adopted as a Standing Order of the House, and there would afterwards be great trouble in getting it altered if its alteration should become necessary. It should be remembered that in dealing with a matter by Bill there were five opportunities on which they could challenge the principle of the Bill, and two on which they could discuss it in detail; whereas, when they proceeded by Resolution, there were only two opportunities of challenging its principle, and only one of discussing it in detail. It therefore became all the more necessary that the House should understand the mind of the Government on that subject; and it appeared to him that there were now on that particular question three minds of the Government. There was first the mind of the Prime Minister, then there was the mind of the President of the Local Government Board, and there was also the later mind of the hon. and learned Solicitor General. It had been urged by the Solicitor General that the stage of Report would still follow that of Committee; but it must be remembered that the 11th of the proposed Rules would make a considerable alteration in the stage of Report, which was to be taken without a Question being put unless there were Notice to re-commit. The House had now before it three minds of the Government; and, seeing that the question could not be raised at later stages, as in the case of a Bill, it was only fair and right that they should pause until they knew what the mind of the Government really was.

MR. ONSLOW

said, they must recollect that these Resolutions would not only affect the House of Commons for the present time, but the House of Commons in generations which were to come; and, therefore, he thought it was incumbent upon them that they should have the most ample discussion upon them, and upon every Amendment which would come before the House. He saw it stated in a newspaper to-day that the Conservative Party had already shown signs of Obstruction. That might be the feeling of some hon. Members opposite; but the Conservative Party did not care one straw, nor mind one iota, of what might be said or done by the Birmingham wire-pullers, and were not to be daunted by anything that might appear in Radical newspapers. There were two kinds of Obstruction. There might be legitimate Obstruction of a particular measure, such as the Prime Minister had offered to the Divorce Bill, or there might be an abuse of the Forms of the House, such as Irish Members had resorted to, and for which Rules should be framed to put down; but this Resolution would operate solely against legitimate Obstruction. The altered condition of things rendered it necessary and inevitable that there should be more talk in the House now than there had been in the past. It was not at present known how even the Speaker was to say what was the evident sense as to whether a debate should close; and, therefore, while objecting that the Speaker should have such power, they were still more determined in their objection to the Chairman of Ways and Means having it. The present Chairman of Committees was of a somewhat nervous and excitable temperament. ["Oh! oh!"] He did not speak in disparagement of the Chairman. He could not help being nervous and excitable; but on a question of great political significance, if the Chairman of Ways and Means lost his head, as he might do, he (Mr. Onslow) thought a great Constitutional wrong would be done to the House. The right hon. Member who preceded Mr. Playfair was of a somewhat more calm and phlegmatic disposition. ["Oh! oh!"] He did not wish to speak disparagingly of any Gentleman; but he could not help thinking that the Chairman of Committees might lend himself to the Party influences of the Prime Minister. For instance, if he had heard it said that it was desirable to get so many votes at a Sitting, and if by 12.30 sufficient progress had not been made, he might consider it his duty to put the clôture on a particular discussion, which might be of great interest and importance, in order to get the remaining Votes passed; and a dictatorial Prime Minister might, by a nod or a wink, suggest that the time had come for doing so. As the Prime Minister had just returned to the House after being absent some hours, and it was their duty to get some further explanation from him, he moved that the House do now adjourn.

MR. RITCHIE

seconded the Motion.

Motion made, and Question, "That this House do now adjourn,"—(Mr. Onslow,)—put, and negatived.

Original Question again proposed.

MR. O'DONNELL

said, he wished to advert to the unfortunate arrangement by which the Question was put in a form that would probably prevent the House from fully discussing, until they came to the very end of these debates, the important point as to whether the Speaker or a Minister of the Crown should have the responsibility of proposing the clôture. In his opinion, if they were to have the clôture at all, it ought to be put into operation by the open and direct initiative of a Minister of the Crown. Nothing could be more grossly unfair than the action of the presiding authorities in the French Chambers towards minorities. Hon. Members ought to consider the possibility, and even the probability, of the Chairman of Committees being a Party man, whose main object would be to pass Government measures and to suppress criticism hostile to the Ministry of the day. It was impossible to consider the working of the power of the gag placed in the hands of a Ministerial nominee without taking into consideration the other changes with which they were threatened under the subsequent Rules to be proposed by the Prime Minister. It was a pity that this important question of the clôture had been placed in the forefront of these Rules, for without a due consideration of the changes to be introduced by the subsequent Rules, they could not be in a position to judge of the alterations which would be introduced in regard to the Offices of the Speaker and the Chairman of Ways and Means. For example, the proposed Grand Committees, each consisting of 100 Members, would be picked and packed in order to represent the policy of the Minister of the day. After a Bill had passed through a Grand Committee, and came under the scope of the Chairman of Ways and Means, or some other functionary dependent on the will of the majority, what was the position which independent Members would occupy? They would have been excluded from the Grand Committee by the Government Whips, and subsequent discussion in the House would be prevented by the apposite application of the gag by the Ministerial nominee in the Chair. Yet the Government would endeavour to escape the responsibility, for they would pretend that they had nothing whatever to do with the application of the gag and the suppression of hostile criticism. Independent Members would be at the mercy of the Government. It would be in the recollection of every Member of that House that during the course of the present Session the Government snatched a division on the Bradlaugh Question by issuing a four-line Whip on the Lords' Inquiry to the Land Act. The sup- porters of the Ministry attended in force, and the Bradlaugh Question was unexpectedly brought forward. It was a very pretty stratagem; but it was not serious, because in the present state of things, when liberty of discussion still existed, independent Members were able to speak against time, until the Opposition could muster their ranks. But, under the New Rule, the clôture would be applied whenever it was needed for the purposes of the majority. It was not Irish Obstruction which would be put down, but the right and power of free discussion. Irish Obstruction had thoroughly done its work. He had long since denounced the weapon of Obstruction, which ought only to be resorted to as a remedy for unendurable wrong and in case of urgent necessity. Obstruction, as the weapon of a small Party, was a chimera and a delusion. Already, Irish Obstruction belonged to a museum of fossils; and such Obstruction could be put down by a two-thirds, or even a four-fifths or nine-tenths majority. But an unscrupulous Minister and an unscrupulous majority, if that power were intrusted to a Chairman of Ways and Means, who was always a Government nominee, would thereby bring about an exaggeration of all the evils inseparable from the system in the case of the proposed Grand Committees. Independent Members would be excluded from those Grand Committees, and then gradually from the House itself. If he were a member of a revolutionary party—of such a party as had supported Mazzini and Garibaldi—he would be glad to see the establishment of the clôture, because it would inevitably tend to the destruction of the powers of Parliament in this country; it would reduce the people of this country to the condition of those nations which had no free Parliaments, and would make Parliament the creature and the minion of the most powerful demagogue of the day.

Question put, "That the words 'or to the Chairman of' stand part of the Question."

The House divided:—Ayes 202; Noes 144: Majority 58.—(Div. List, No. 347.)

MR. RAIKES

moved to amend the 1st Resolution by inserting in line 2, after the first "of," the words "Ways and Means in." The object of the Amendment was to exclude from the exercise of the somewhat invidious powers and privileges which it was proposed to confer upon the Chairman of Ways and Means such amateur and temporary Chairmen who might be called upon at a late hour of the night to take the place of the official Chairman. In his opinion, the Chairman of Committees had very important and responsible duties to fulfil, and occupied in Committee a position analogous to that held by the Speaker in the House itself; and there being no appeal, as some appeared to imagine, from the decision of the Chairman to the Speaker, it was necessary that the temporary Chairman, who was freed from all responsibility on leaving the Chair, should not be intrusted with powers which might, perhaps, be conferred without much danger upon the official Chairman, whose salary was dependent upon the annual Vote of the House. He hoped that they would hear from the Prime Minister something which would re-assure the House with regard to various suggestions which had been thrown out from the Treasury Bench during his absence as to the course which the Government proposed to adopt, and which, so far as he understood it, amounted to taking away the substance, while granting the form of this Amendment. When they had sanctioned the principle of this Amendment, it would be hard that on a subsequent day they should be asked, practically, to reverse the principle by creating some new personages clothed with more or less indefinite powers for presiding over a more or less indefinite body, and armed with the authority which this Amendment sought to remove from amateur Chairmen. The right hon. Member concluded by moving the Amendment of which he had given Notice.

Amendment proposed, in line 2, by inserting after the first word "of," the words "Ways and Means in."—(Mr. Raikes.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

MR. GLADSTONE

said, the right hon. Gentleman correctly understood that it was the intention of the Government to assent to this Amendment without any qualification or condition whatever. It was, however, only just to the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Stanhope), whose recollection of his utterances on this subject he provisionally accepted yesterday, that he should say that, having had an opportunity of referring to the debate, the exact purport of which had escaped him, he now finally adopted the hon. Member's statement of what he had said as accurate. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Preston (Mr. Raikes) appeared to be labouring under an impression, or an apprehension, which he (Mr. Gladstone) hoped and desired to be able to remove from the mind of the right hon. Gentleman. The right hon. Gentleman was under the apprehension that the Government intended to introduce in connection with this scheme of Resolutions, or during the present Sitting of the House of Commons, some new plan by which they would again propose that whatever power of closing debate might be given to the Chairman of Ways and Means should also be given to a casual Chairman. Now, the Government had no intention whatever of making any proposal during the present Sitting on the subject of casual Chairmen. They did think, however, that it had been felt by the House that the present provisions for the appointment of casual Chairmen, and the absence of any special qualification, were not quite satisfactory; and it would be proper, and he hoped it would not be found difficult, to improve those provisions. During the next Session, or at any future period, the question of making better provision might be considered. But there was not the slightest intention of mixing up that subject with the present debates, or to make any proposal upon it in connection with the present Resolutions; and, so far as casual Chairmen were concerned, hon. Members might banish them from their minds. He had no wish to speak disparagingly of casual Chairmen, for some of them had been found extremely valuable, and useful, and even distinguished upon occasions; but he proposed to banish them altogether so far as this Autumn Sitting was concerned. He hoped he had now removed all apprehension on the subject; but, before he sat down, he wished to give in his distinct adhesion to what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Preston (Mr. Raikes) had said with reference to the position of Chairman of Ways and Means. The right hon. Gentleman held that position himself with ability and distinction; and he (Mr. Gladstone) must bear his testimony to the fact that, although the right hon. Gentleman out of the Chair was as stout a Party man as any in the House, yet in the Chair he would as soon have his case judged by the right hon. Gentleman as by anybody. He wished to remind the House, after the very disparaging remarks which had fallen from different hon. Gentlemen in the course of the debate, of a fact which was indisputable—namely, that, although it was perfectly true that the Chairman of Ways and Means did not preclude himself from voting in the ordinary divisions of the House, yet that nothing was more rare than for the Chairman of Ways and Means to be seen taking a share in any Party debate. He often assisted the House upon the consideration of Private Bills; but he most rarely assisted the House by his judgment in a Party discussion. He had been conversing on this subject with a right hon. Friend, and he had stated that he had a difficulty in recollecting a case in which the Chairman of Ways and Means had interfered in a Party debate. He was reminded of a case which very much strengthened his argument—the case of Mr. Massey, a highly respectable Member of the House, who filled the position of Chairman of Committees some years ago. On one occasion, Mr. Massey did take part in a Party debate on the Reform Bill; but he took part in it by speaking against the Party with whom he usually acted. This fact, he hoped, would do something to mitigate any disposition which might exist in any quarter to disparage the impartiality of any hon. Member who might happen to occupy the position of Chairman of Ways and Means. He hoped that the House, having regard to prior experiences, and not to speculation on the future, would have no apprehension as to the impartial judgment of the Chairman of Ways and Means; and he had spoken these few words because he was convinced that the House of Commons had a great interest in maintaining the high position of that officer—an interest he would not say equal to that which it had in maintaining the position of the Chair itself, but one only second to the interest it had in maintaining the position of the Chair. He concurred with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Preston in the general view he entertained of the Office of Chairman of Ways and Means, and he also concurred with the right hon. Gentleman in the Amendment he had proposed.

LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL

, as a Member of the Tory Party, looked with some suspicion upon the interchange of flattering compliments between the right hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Raikes) and the Prime Minister. They had seen the right hon. Gentleman, as a leading Member of the Tory Party, getting up to propose an Amendment, and making flattering observations upon the Prime Minister and the Government; and immediately afterwards they found the Prime Minister getting up to accept the Amendment, and making flattering observations upon the right hon. Gentleman who had moved it. Of course, if that sort of thing was to go on much longer the Autumn Session would not be of very long duration. He thought that the Amendment of his right hon. Friend was undoubtedly a great improvement on the Resolution, now that the Amendment of his hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth (Sir H. Drummond Wolff) had been rejected; but he thought that even the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman was itself susceptible of improvement, and, with the permission of the House, he would suggest how that Amendment might be improved. It was quite unnecessary that he should take any part in the shower of compliments which had fallen upon the Chairman of Ways and Means. He would certainly say nothing against him; but he was unable to say anything in favour of him. No doubt, there was a good deal of conventionality in what had taken place; but he and other hon. Members who sat below the Gangway in that part of the House were not accustomed to exchange compliments with each other. As to the position of the Chairman of Ways and Means, there was no doubt about it whatever; and the public knew perfectly well, and the House knew perfectly well, that the Chairman of Committees was always a partizan. The great effort usually made by the Chairman of Ways and Means was not that he should avoid appearing to be a partizan, but that he should not appear to be too much of a partizan. [Cries of "Oh!" and "No!"] At any rate, that was his (Lord Randolph Churchill's) opinion, and he believed that to be the great effort of the Chairman of Ways and Means. ["Oh, oh!"] Hon. Members said "Oh!" but it was a well-known fact that the success of a Chairman of Committees was that he had not appeared too much of a partizan. The Prime Minister appeared to hold a very extraordinary opinion in regard to the Chairman of Committees. If he had understood the right hon. Gentleman rightly, he had praised the late Chairman of Committees (Mr. Raikes) because he constantly voted against his Party. ["No, no!"] If that was not so, he begged the right hon. Gentleman's pardon for having misrepresented him. If, however, it really were so, he would advise the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister to recommend his own Chairman of Committees to take the same course on some occasions. What he wished to suggest to the House was that they should add to the end of the Amendment of his right hon. Friend the Member for Preston these words, "after consultation with Mr. Speaker." ["Oh!"] Hon. Members opposite might cry "Oh!" but there was more in the suggestion than appeared at first sight. They knew that in all well-regulated public schools the power and the privilege of flogging were always reserved for the head master, and were never intrusted to the usher. He thought, therefore, as the Prime Minister appeared to him to be very much inclined to treat the House of Commons of the present day as Dr. Keats used to treat his boys in the public school of Eton in olden days, the House would act very wisely if it took some care to provide that this extreme power of punishment should only rest with the highest authority in the House. If the Chairman of Committees noticed that Obstruction was going on in the House, he would be able at once to suspend the Sitting of the Committee, but for so long a time only as would enable him to consult the Speaker upon the matter, and to inform the House that he had the support of the Speaker in any action he felt it desirable to take. Curiously enough, he was reminded of a circumstance which happened only two Sessions ago. The House would recollect that on the occasion to which he referred the Chairman of Committees gave a decision which was one of the most extraordinary ever arrived at in the House of Commons. The Chairman imagined that it was in his power to put to silence a very highly-respected Member of the Tory Party; but some hon. Members sitting below the Gangway on that side of the House imagined that he had no such power. They disputed the ruling of the Chairman. The Prime Minister did not happen to be in the House at the time, and in the end the Chairman of Committees left the Chair and proceeded to consult the Speaker. When he returned, he came back with the knowledge that he had not the power to do what he thought he had a right to do. In that case there was no inconvenience and no considerable delay of the proceedings. The Committee was only suspended for a very few minutes, and it had, therefore, been demonstrated that it was perfectly easy for the Chairman of Committees to consult the Speaker without interfering in any way prejudicially with the Business of the House. There was this further advantage in such a course—that if the Chairman of Committees, in consulting the Speaker, gave him a report as to the state of affairs in the House which might not subsequently turn out to be one which fairly represented the nature of the proceedings, the Speaker would be very chary how he gave his sanction to the closing of a debate in Committee in future. He (Lord Randolph Churchill) could not help thinking that the House would feel very much happier and more satisfied upon the question of closing a debate in Committee if there was in every case to be an appeal from the Chairman of Committees to the Speaker. His right hon. Friend the Member for Preston had already pointed out that there was the very strongest difference between the position of the Chairman of Ways and Means and that of the Speaker. There was one difference which had not been pointed out before, and which he was obliged to his right hon. Friend for having reminded him of. His right hon. Friend said that the conduct of the Chairman of Ways and Means could always be called in question, because it was necessary that the Vote for payment of his salary must be moved for every year in Committee of Supply. That was a fact which he thought was very well worth remembering. But what did it come to? It came to this—that the Chairman of Committees was paid by the House; but, of course, if the Government were in any way annoyed or displeased, or put out by the conduct of the Chairman of Committees for not sufficiently enforcing the clôture, they would take steps which would practically enable them to get rid of the offender. ["Oh!"] Hon. Members opposite appeared to object to that statement. "Am I dog, that I should do this thing" was always said by the person who did the deed; and it was perfectly certain that there were persons in that House, connected with the conduct of Public Business, who might be capable, under provocation, of visiting the Chairman of Committees with their displeasure. Without, however, insisting that such a course would be pursued, he simply desired to point out that the Chairman of Committees was absolutely dependent upon the Government of the day, and that without the assistance of the Government of the day he would find it difficult to get his salary voted. [Cries of "Oh!" and "No!"] It was no good saying "Oh, oh!" and "No, no!" Nothing annoyed the Prime Minister more than when the Irish Members did that, and he did not see why other hon. Members should be subjected to the same kind of interruption which the Prime Minister in his own case disliked so much. He had no wish to detain the House longer; but he submitted that the Amendment he proposed to move would be a great improvement upon this most extremely defective scheme of Her Majesty's Government, and he hoped the House would accept it.

MR. SPEAKER

The Amendment of the noble Lord would, I think, come in properly after the word "House," in line 2; but the Amendment moved by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Preston (Mr. Raikes) is complete in itself. It would then read in this way— That when it shall appear to Mr. Speaker or to the Chairman of Ways and Means in a Committee of the Whole House—after consultation with Mr. Speaker.

MR. SCLATER-BOOTH

rose to Order. He had given Notice of an Amendment after the words "a Committee of the Whole House," to insert the words "not being the Committee of Supply." If the noble Lord's Amendment were adopted and inserted in the place suggested by the Speaker, it would, he apprehended, be impossible for him to move his Amendment.

MR. O'DONNELL

rose; but—

MR. SPEAKER

, interposing, said: I apprehend that even if the House were to adopt the Amendment of the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill), the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Hampshire (Mr. Sclater-Booth) might still follow.

Question put, and agreed to.

LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL

then moved to further amend the 1st Resolution, by inserting, after the word "House," in line 2, the words "after consultation with Mr. Speaker."

Amendment proposed, In line 2, by inserting, after the word "House," the words "after consultation with Mr. Speaker."—(Lord Randolph Churchill.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

MR. GLADSTONE

(after a pause) said, he had been waiting for some indication from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Preston (Mr. Raikes), who was his Leader on this occasion, and whose Amendment it was proposed to amend, as to the light in which he regarded it. If the Amendment of the noble Lord were agreed to, he (Mr. Gladstone) should propose further to amend it by the introduction of a Proviso— That inasmuch as it is essentially necessary that Mr. Speaker, in order to review in a satisfactory manner the decisions of the Chairman of Ways and Means, should be acquainted with the merits, it shall hereafter become the duty of Mr. Speaker invariably to be present during all debates in Committee.

MR. O'DONNELL

remarked, that the observations which the Prime Minister had just made threw a new light on the intentions of Her Majesty's Government, and he did not think that it was a reassuring light. It now appeared that the kind of Obstruction to be put down under the New Rules was not that kind of Obstruction which was so notorious and general that it would come to the ears of the Speaker in the ordinary course of events; but it seemed to be the intention of the Prime Minister and of Her Majesty's Government to put down any appearance of delay which might not have reached the proportions of Obstruction, or even have gone beyond the proportions of legitimate discussion. The conduct of the Government in the matter confirmed the worst suspicions that had been expressed. Assuredly if there were a case of real Obstruction requiring the application of the gag, it would come to the ears not only of the Speaker, but of much less important persons; and it was that kind of Obstruction the House believed the Resolutions to be directed against. But now they had it from the Prime Minister himself that he contemplated a state of things in which it would become possible for the Chairman of Ways and Means to interfere in all sorts of minor provocations, and against whoever it might please the Chairman of Ways and Means to silence, even although no Obstruction had occurred such as would call the attention of the Speaker of the House to what might happen to be going on in Parliament. As he had said already, this was a confirmation of some of the worst suspicions which had been given expression to in the course of the debate that evening. He felt compelled to say that, unless the Chairman of Ways and Means were required to consult with Mr. Speaker, there would be very little guarantee indeed that the limitation proposed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Preston (Mr. Raikes), and accepted with suspicious readiness by the Head of the Government, would be any guarantee at all. It was all very well to talk about the conduct of the Chairman of Ways and Means being brought before the House if he were guilty of any misdeed. That was a mighty theoretical possibility; but he (Mr. O'Donnell) entertained a strong opinion that the worse the conduct of the Chairman of Ways and Means happened to be, if that conduct were committed in furtherance of the Business of the Government, it would receive their hearty and thorough support. As for the idea of the annual recurrence of the consideration of the salary of the Chairman of Ways and Means being any guarantee for the fair play of a Ministerial Chairman of Committees, he thought, on the contrary, that the knowledge that the getting of the salary was dependent upon the goodwill of the Leader of the Government would make the officer in question a more subservient tool of an unscrupulous Prime Minister. He did not think that any misconduct on the part of the Chairman of Ways and Means, when committed in defence of the Government policy, would result in anything else than the enthusiastic support of the Government majority. Although every man who went with the Government into the Lobby to support the Chairman of Ways and Means would be quite ready to admit in private conversation that the conduct of the Chairman was indefensible, nevertheless every one of them would give his vote in defence, and, if necessary, in laudation of that conduct. The House was blindly following the lead of the Prime Minister, and before the dozen Commandments the right hon. Gentleman had invented were completed, the House of Commons would find itself in a position in which the most Bismarck-ridden Assembly on the Continent would find nothing to envy.

MR. GORST

said, he should like to say one word before the House came to a decision upon the Amendment of his noble Friend. He really found himself unable to take the view which seemed to be favoured by the Front Benches on both sides of the House, that the Chairman of Ways and Means was a person possessed of such extraordinary impartiality that he was, in point of fact, in a similar position to that of the Speaker himself. The Amendment of his noble Friend was intended to provide a security, not that the Speaker should sit in the House of Commons during all Committees, in order to review the conduct and decisions of the Chairman of Ways and Means on every particular point, but simply to secure that before the Chairman of Ways and Means exercised the extraordinary powers which it was proposed to confer upon him, and which they were told were only to be exercised in cases of Obstruction, they should in such cases have the security of the approbation of the Speaker before the extraordinary powers were put in force. When he heard the Prime Minister speaking of the extreme impartiality of the Chairman of Ways and Means, he could not help recollecting an incident which occurred two or three days after he became a Member of the House. He well remembered the present Lord Cairns, who was at that time a distinguished Member of the House of Commons, speaking from the Front Opposition Bench, use this language—that from the Chairman of Committees nobody in the House of Commons expected impartiality. All that was expected of him was that he should exhibit a decent appearance of impartiality. He supported the Amendment because it would give the House the security of a consultation between the Chairman of Ways and Means and the Speaker.

SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE

said, the discussion which had taken place furnished another illustration of the inconvenience to which he had drawn the attention of the House yesterday. He had then pointed out the difficulty that might arise when the House was sitting in Committee without the Speaker in the Chair; and it seemed to him that it would have been very much more convenient to have followed the practice of which the Speaker gave the House an example last year in regard to the Rules of Urgency, and to have dealt with these two matters separately. It had, however, been otherwise decided by Her Majesty's Government, and the House was now engaged in the middle of the discussion of the 1st Rule. They had arrived at the point when it became necessary to give the initiative for some purpose or other yet to be defined. They had already come to the conclusion that the initiative was to be given to the Speaker when the House was full, and the right hon. Gentleman was in the Chair, and also to the Chairman of Ways and Means; but to no other person when the House happened to be in Committee. He did not think they could get beyond that; and if they attempted to make distinctions, they would only find themselves landed in confusion. For this reason he did not think they ought to entertain such a proposal as that which had been made by his noble Friend. He felt that there ought to be a distinction between cases when the House was in full possession of its faculties; of course, he used the word "faculties" in its proper sense, and it was a perfectly accurate word to use. There ought to be a difference when the House was in full possession of its powers and faculties, and when it was in the less perfect condition it assumed when in Committee. He had no doubt they ought to place in the hands of the Chairman of Ways and Means powers of a disciplinary character, and that he should possess ample means for securing order and putting a stop to wilful Obstruction; but it would tend, he thought, to confuse rather than to improve the Resolution if they were to attempt to introduce into it any further discretionary power such as that which had been proposed by his noble Friend.

MR. STANLEY LEIGHTON

said, that if the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill) went to a division he would certainly vote with him. The Amendment merely provided for an appeal from a man who must necessarily be to some extent inexperienced, who found himself placed in a position of great difficulty, and to whom very considerable powers had been given. The Speaker was the natural person to whom the Deputy Speaker should refer. It would cause no official delay. At the outside 20 minutes would be sufficient to enable the Chairman of Ways and Means to consult the Speaker, and to reconsider any step he might have taken. The Prime Minister maintained that the Speaker, not being present at the Sittings of the House in Committee, would not be in a position to judge of the merits of the question upon which his advice was asked. He attached very little weight to that argument. It would equally apply to the decisions of the Judges of Appeal. Every Judge of Appeal was accustomed to overrule or support the decision of the Court below, although he had not heard the case in the first instance, and all his knowledge of it was derived from the report made to him of the facts. In the same way the facts of the case would be reported to the Speaker by the Chairman of Ways and Means. He was sure that the statement made by the Chairman to the Speaker would be accurate, and that the Speaker would experience no difficulty in giving his assistance and advice to the Chairman.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes 56; Noes 204: Majority 148.—(Div. List, No. 348.)

SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOT

said, he thought they had now arrived at a time when it was desirable to move the adjournment of the debate. They had reached the important Amendment which his right hon. Friend the Member for North Hampshire (Mr. Sclater-Booth) had placed upon the Paper.

MR. SPEAKER

I must point out that no such Motion could be made at the present moment, seeing that there is no Question before the House.

SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOT

I was about to move the adjournment of the House.

MR. SPEAKER

The right hon. Gentleman in charge of the next Amendment has a claim to be heard.

MR. SCLATER-BOOTH

If it would not involve the loss of my right to move the Amendment, I should like to ask the Prime Minister if he does not think the time has now arrived when the adjournment of the debate or of the House might be agreed to?

MR. GLADSTONE

I must point out to the right hon. Gentleman that the hour (12.15) is quite early, and I think the discussion may be continued a little longer. There are an enormous number of Amendments upon the Paper, and the ordinary Business of the Session is continued until a much later hour. Perhaps, in three quarters of an hour from the present time, it may be advisable to adjourn.

MR. SCLATER-BOOTH

then moved, as an Amendment to the proposed 1st Resolution, in line 2, after the word "House," to insert the words "not being the Committee of Supply." The right hon. Gentleman said, he had not asked the Prime Minister to consent to the adjournment of the House because he was not prepared to go on with his Amendment, but because he thought there was a general feeling that the adjournment should now take place. If he had been mistaken, it showed, at all events, how difficult it was to ascertain what the general feeling of the House was. He hoped, in the few observations he was about to make in introducing the Amendment to the House, that he should not repeat himself, or give occasion to any other hon. Member to repeat any of the arguments or representations which had been placed before the House that day and yesterday. He would assume, for the purposes of his argument, that there was to be an initiative of the clôture by the Speaker and also by the Chairman of Ways and Means; and what he contended, and sought by the Amendment to secure, was that the initiative by the Chairman of Ways and Means should not be permitted in Committee of Supply. It was one thing to prevent or to put an end to wearisome debates by means of a new, a strong, and, he had almost said, a violent process; but it would be quite another thing to extort the public money by means of the same course of procedure. He believed that there was a Constitutional and a very serious practical objection to the use of this instrument for closing debate in Committee of Supply. It would be altogether inapplicable to the proceedings of the House in Supply. It was entirely inapplicable to such proceedings; and he thought that no hon. Member who took the trouble to read the Resolution would fail to come to the conclusion which, he came to when he read it some months ago—that it was not drawn with a view to its being applied to any proceedings in Committee, much less to the proceedings in Committee of Supply, but that it was drawn with the view of putting a stop to those protracted discussions which had been going on from day to day and from week to week, and of which they had had for several years so much cause to complain bitterly. Any hon. Member who remembered the remarkable speech of the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for India (the Marquess of Hartington) in the early part of the Session would recollect that that was the burthen of the song of the noble Marquess, and that the noble Marquess pointed out that it was to debates of that character that the Resolutions were to be applied. The noble Marquess even went still further, and named certain hon. Members whom he supposed would be the first victims of the New Rules. He (Mr. Sclater-Booth) was of opinion that the clôture was entirely inapplicable to the proceedings in Committee of Supply. Everybody knew what the proceedings in Committee of Supply were. They came on generally at a very inconvenient hour—at an hour of the day, sometimes, when the Attorney General for Ireland (Mr. W. M. Johnson) declined to make a speech or address the House at all. This was not from any fault on the part of those who were interested in the discussion of the Estimates, or who desired to take part in their discus- sion, but from the fault of the Government, who preferred other and more interesting Business, or the fault of Members who allowed interminable Motions to intervene before the House was allowed to go into Committee of Supply. The House at 9 o'clock, when it went into Committee of Supply, was very often in an empty condition; and how was the proposed new Rule to be worked with the House in such a state, if it should appear to the Chairman, under such circumstances, during any debate, that sufficiently rapid progress was not being made? The position of the House would be this. The great majority of hon. Members would have gone to dinner. The few who remained in the House desired to address themselves to the Business before the Committee; but there were only one or two Members on the Treasury Bench, and none at all on the Bench opposite. Was the conversation which ensued on the Question being put from the Chair in any sense debate? He thought not. The Question put to the Committee was that a certain sum of money be granted to Her Majesty, whereupon hon. Members, who felt it their duty to do so, moved Amendments or asked questions, to which they expected replies from the Treasury Bench. But if this Resolution were adopted it would be easy in Committee of Supply for the Chairman to hold that the debate had gone on to an unreasonable length, and the general sense of the two divisions of the House might seem to sanction the adoption of the clôture; and in that way an important Amendment, which might have come before the Committee, had time been given, would be shut out, and the money would be obtained without further discussion. But what was the evident sense of the House which the Chairman had to ascertain? His hon. Friend the Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn), for instance, might get up in his place to oppose the salary of the Lord Privy Seal; and, perhaps, a number of Gentlemen of the same way of thinking, who intended in the course of an hour or two to return from the Lobby or the Dining Room to give their vote in favour of his Motion, might be absent. It was clear, then, that the sense of the House, as represented by these Gentlemen, might be quite different from the real sense of the House at the time. He said, therefore, that the procedure by way of clôture was entirely opposed and inapplicable to the Business in Committee of Supply; moreover, he held it to be unnecessary. It was chiefly the second readings of Bills that were opposed in an Obstructive manner—certainly, as far as his experience served him, it was not discussion in Supply that required to be dealt with in the manner proposed by the Resolution. Again, there were other directions in which procedure in Supply might be greatly improved; and they already had an intimation of the views of the Government on this subject, because they proposed to extend their system of progress in Supply to other than Government nights. If it were not irrelevant he should be inclined to object to the very limited opportunity for discussion on going into Supply which the Government proposed to afford, and he would rather say that when once a Class of the Estimates had been opened no intervening Motion should be admitted until that Class had been completed. That plan he hoped the Government would adopt in preference to the stringent and limited expedient which they had indicated; and, further, he would remind the Committee that there were other Resolutions on the Paper which would greatly facilitate procedure in Supply. But his strongest objection was to the highly unconstitutional character which the application of the proposed power might assume. Hon. Members were aware that at certain times nothing could exceed the anxiety of a Government to get money; and there were many conceivable circumstances under which, if the clôture were in force, he did not think a Chairman of Committees would refrain from endeavouring to assist them in this respect. Anything more unsatisfactory to the people at large could hardly be imagined than that the Government of the day should be able, by means of this stringent Rule, pointing a pistol, as it were, at the head of the Committee to obtain money in Supply, and at the same time to silence those who desired to express their grievances in a Constitutional manner. This was neither an exaggerated nor a fanciful view of what might take place, and he asked hon. Gentlemen to say whether his anticipations were not likely on many occasions to be realized? It was on Monday, the 13th of March last, that the Army Estimates were taken in Committee of Supply, and on the evening of the previous Friday the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War came down and stated that on the following Monday the first Vote must be passed—an announcement which in that House he had never heard paralleled. It was not, however, so bad as what followed, for the right hon. Gentleman, on the Monday, did not begin to make his very important Statement until 1 o'clock in the morning, and having taken ample time in its delivery, the Committee were then and there required to pass a Vote of £4,000,000 for the Army. He would not go back into all the circumstances, but peculiar reasons were alleged for the desire on the part of the Government to press for a Vote on that occasion—reasons, however, which were not well founded, inasmuch as they proceeded on a too scrupulous estimate of the time required for the progress of a Money Bill through Parliament. Knowing, then, the desire of the Government and the natural wish of the Chairman to facilitate the progress of Government Business, no one could doubt that had this weapon of the clôture been available at the time it would have been put into operation, and £4,000,000 would have been extorted from the Committee of Supply without any discussion, and with a precipitation which hon. Members on that side of the House, having knowledge of the mode in which financial Business should be conducted, believed to be entirely unnecessary, or who, at all events, felt that the conduct of the Government was overstrained. He believed he had made out—first, the want of applicability of the clôture to the usual course of Supply; secondly, that it was not required in view of the other improvements proposed for the conduct of Business which would probably be adopted by the House; and, thirdly, that the proposal was unconstitutional. Under these circumstances, he believed the House would pause before accepting it. In submitting the Amendment of which he had given Notice to the consideration of hon. Members, he expressed a hope that if the other Resolutions should not find favour with the House, the Government would endeavour to find out some other means of facilitating progress in Supply. Without any wish to prolong the present discussion, he mentioned that expressions of encouragement were frequently given to hon. Members in criticizing the Estimates from the Front Benches on both sides of the House, and Members of the Government were accustomed particularly to point out that full and ample discussion was desirable. His own view was that, since the time when full and detailed explanation of the Estimates was given to the House weeks and months beforehand, the right of discussion and criticism should be as free as possible, but that it should be used as little as possible by Members of the House. He did not think that much practical good arose from the conversational inquiries across the Table of the House upon matters which, after all, were to be found set out on the pages of the Estimates, and he was not one of those to encourage discussion of that kind. It was, no doubt, one of the Constitutional functions of the House that it should vote in Committee of Supply with absolute freedom. He believed, however, that the proposed application of the clôture to procedure in Supply might be made great use of, he would not say by an unscrupulous Government, but by a Government pressed with regard to its finances; and he thought they ought to obtain from the present occupants of the Treasury Bench a distinct declaration that they would not make use of any such means of pressing forward their financial Business. The attention of the Government had probably been called to this point, although, in the earlier part of the Session, no allusion had been made to it. It seemed to him that the idea of the Government should be more clearly framed, and that much more stringent Regulations should be introduced if the clôture were intended to be made applicable to such a Constitutional right of the House as the voting of public money. For these reasons he begged to move the Amendment of which he had given Notice.

Amendment proposed, In line 2, by inserting, after the word "House," the words "not being the Committee of Supply."—(Mr. Sclater-Booth.)

Question proposed, "That the words 'not being the Committee of Supply' be there inserted."

MR. GLADSTONE

said, the question which had been raised by the right hon. Gentleman opposite was one that it was perfectly fair to bring to the special attention of the House; but it was also one upon which it appeared quite clear to his mind that the balance of the argument was altogether against the Amendment proposed. He might say, in the first place, that he saw no advantage in bringing into this discussion a reference to the "£4,000,000 night." It was to be deplored that they found themselves obliged to go into Committee of Supply, as they did on that occasion, at 1 o'clock in the morning, and that a most important statement of the Minister of War should have been made at an hour when it was too late to be reported, and when it was impossible to have a proper attendance. That the Government should be compelled to take that large Vote of money under those circumstances was certainly a strange proceeding, the recurrence of which they would do their utmost to prevent. But this was wholly due to the precedence given to preliminary Motions; and so far from its being supposed that the Government had, on that occasion, any reason to complain of the House, or of any disposition on the part of the House to prolong the debate unduly, they were very thankful for the assistance rendered them in their endeavour to act in conformity with the law; and, therefore, he could not agree with the right hon. Gentleman that the occasion in question afforded the slightest opportunity for the application of the proposed Rule. The right hon. Gentleman had advanced several arguments in support of his Amendment. He said, in the first place, that Supply came on not infrequently in the more early hours of the evening, and at a time when there was a limited number of Members in the House. But they had made an absolute provision to prevent the stoppage of debate at a time when, owing to the very limited attendance of Members, the Government might have an undue preponderance, by the Rule embodied in the 1st Resolution, which absolutely required that whatever might be the number of Members opposing, there must be, at least, 100 Members as a minimum supporting the application of the Rule. The idea, therefore, that this was to be done by a handful of Members in a House, comparatively speaking, empty had no foundation. The right hon. Gentleman then said there was nothing to justify the application of the Rule to procedure in Committee of Supply. He was sorry to differ from him on this point; but there had been frequent occasions of difficulty in Committee of Supply, and it would be in the recollection of the House that "All-Night Sittings" had to be held in consequence of the disposition which had been shown to retard Business. But was there any reason for exempting a particular class of Committees from the Rule which it was proposed to apply to Committees in general? He agreed with the right hon. Gentleman that they should be most careful of the Privileges of the House in regard to Supply; and, anxious as ho was to see efficiency restored to their Procedure, he should be most jealous of limiting the right of any Member of the Committee to speak as often as he thought necessary. Let the House consider whether they should, on that ground, exempt the Committee of Supply from the operation of this Rule. So far from its being the fact that in Committee of Supply there were fewer opportunities of moving Amendments than in Committee on a Bill, their number was very much greater; and for this reason—when in Committee on a Bill, if, after an Amendment had been disposed of, another Amendment, not identical with it, but approximating to it, were proposed, the Chairman would probably rule it out of Order; but if an approximate Amendment were proposed in Committee of Supply it could not be so ruled. If, for instance, it were proposed to reduce a Vote by the sum of £600 and the Motion were negatived, an hon. Member could then move a reduction of £550, which might be followed by another proposal to reduce the Vote by £500, and these could not be ruled out of Order by the Chairman, because each Motion was specifically different from the others. Therefore, while the power of speaking in Committee of Supply was unlimited, and he hoped would remain so, the power of moving Amendments in Supply was far greater than it was in Committee on a Bill. But what was the procedure which followed Committee on a Bill? The Bill was reported, and no Question was put from the Chair but "That the Bill be now considered." Members who desired to raise questions must themselves frame their Amendments and make their references to particular parts of the Bill. But what was the case in Supply, where every Resolution of Committee must be cited from the Chair, and a distinct opportunity of amendment must be open to all Members of the House? For these reasons, he believed it was essential that the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman should be rejected. Supply was the most important Business of the House; and, therefore, it ought to be the last to be submitted to gagging laws.

MR. O'DONNELL

said, he could assure hon. Members that he had had some experience of this question in Committee of Supply. He had heard with some surprise the statement that after an Amendment to reduce a Vote of £600 to £550 had been moved and rejected, Motions to reduce it to £500, £450, and so on ad infinitum could be made. He did not think it possible for such Motions to be made. When he had ventured upon that course he had always been quickly stopped by the presiding authority; and he really could not say that the presiding authority had been very wrong in stopping him. He was afraid the Prime Minister was unacquainted with the later practice of the House. There was strong reason why the Committee of Supply should be free from the operation of the Gagging Clause, and that was that Supply was the main Business of the House of Commons—the Business which, above all other Business, should be protected against Ministerial interference or the arbitrary action of Ministerial nominees or placemen. If the experiment was to be tried, and the gagging laws were to have application, they ought to be applied to other Departments of the Business of the House, and they ought to see whether Supply could not be left unaffected by this Resolution. The only result of applying the gagging laws to the Business of Supply would be that the Government, knowing they bad power to shut up discussion, would put off Supply to the last moment, when, under the plea of Urgency, they could manufacture as much "evident sense of the House" as they needed.

SIR JOHN HAY

said, he would not detain the House more than a moment or two in supporting the Amendment of his right hon. Friend. With regard to the Navy Estimates for the last two Sessions, for a variety of reasons they had been introduced at a period of the year which hon. Members on both sides of the House had recognized as extremely inconvenient. With regard to these Estimates, there were a limited number of naval officers and others in the House who possessed special information on these subjects—certainly not 40, which number was necessary to make the quorum which had been alluded to as necessary to support the discussion. Under this New Rule, then, the discussion on the Navy Estimates might be put a stop to at any moment. The Prime Minister, having other things to attend to, was seldom present during the discussion of naval subjects. Many others were usually absent; and it might be difficult to make a quorum. The right hon. Gentleman himself, however, would admit that the subjects discussed—involving, as they did, the expenditure of £10,000,000 or £12,000,000—were subjects which should be adequately discussed in the House. But, seeing that the presence of 140 Members would be necessary to close such a debate, if the discussion of the Navy Estimates was being taken in August, and the Government found it inconvenient to allow it to continue, they could easily bring down 100 Members to silence the 40 who were discussing those Votes, and shut up the debate. The result of that might be that they might have £10,000,000 voted without discussion at all. During the time he had had the honour of a seat in Parliament he had known only two Speakers; but he had sat under seven Chairmen of Committees; and he was sure, from the way in which subjects in Supply were disposed of, that in the future the Navy Estimates would be shut out of discussion unless this Amendment were agreed to.

MR. SALT

said, they must consider the operation of the clôture, not with regard to hon. or right hon. Gentlemen who sat on the Ministerial or the Opposition side of the House, but with regard to the position and action of some Government at some future time, and possibly at a very near time. They must remember that every future Government would not only apply the Rules that existed in the House of Commons, but be guided and be trained up by the Rules they found in existence when they acceded to Office. They might be tempted to use the Rules they found in existence in a manner that was not intended when the Rules were first framed. He did not wish to make too much of this; but, at the same time, it was a point they should not lose sight of throughout the whole of those discussions. There was one other thing he wished to say on this matter. As to Supply, it was extremely important, both for the sake of the House and the country at large, that there should be, not only no real interference with the freedom of discussion in Supply, but no apparent interference with it. It ought not to be possible to interfere with it; but, more than that, it ought to be impossible for anyone, either inside or outside the House, however hostile to the Government of the day, to be able to say that the Rules of the House had been so framed that it was possible to interfere with the freedom of Supply. With regard to the application of this Rule to Supply, he would observe that if it were once applied to it, it would he extremely difficult to withdraw it afterwards; and, on the other hand, if it were not applied to Supply, and were found to work exceedingly well in those cases in which it was applied—which it might do, for he was not at all prejudiced in the matter one way or the other—it would be very easy indeed to extend it to Supply, fie should say in all business matters, large or small, and especially in matters of great Constitutional importance, such as those they were now discussing, it was very much wiser to go below or within what they wished rather than above or beyond it—it was not only wiser, but very much safer, and better for the House and everybody concerned. It was the wise and business-like way of acting. If they abstained from applying this Clôture Rule to Supply, if it was found to work well in other cases, there would be no difficulty at some future time in extending it to Supply.

THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON

It is to be regretted that any necessity at all should have arisen for the adoption of Rules for the limitation of debates. Everyone knows it would be much better if Members were willing universally to bow of their own accord to the general sense of the House, and to refrain from prolonging debates when the general sense of the House that they should terminate had been manifested. All, however, must now acknowledge that the time has gone by for us to expect that. There is a certain section of Members who are not disposed to allow such manifestations to guide their course of conduct, and it is generally admitted that some restrictions on the liberty of debate are necessary. That being so, I would ask the House to consider whether it is wise to exclude any class of debate from the operation of the Rule the House may think it necessary to adopt? If the House should ever—I trust that the necessity may not occur—but if the House should ever at any future time have again to enter into a contest with organized Obstruction, hon. Members may rest assured that every weapon at the disposal of the House will have to be made use of to put a stop to it. It would be, in my opinion, the height of folly to pass Rules restricting debate on certain subjects, and yet, by the omission of Supply, acknowledge that Obstruction in that important Business may take place. The right hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment said he did not know that Obstruction had taken place in the Business of Supply. Well, perhaps it has not taken place so frequently in Supply as on other occasions; but I can recollect during recent years several occasions on which large majorities on both sides have been reluctantly compelled to sit up the best part of the night at the will of a small minority to pass some Irish Votes. That kind of thing has not only occurred during the existence of the present Government, but I find that in 1877 a precisely similar case occurred—during a period when the late Government were in Office. On the 2nd of July, 1877, on the Army Estimates, at half-past 12 o'clock, the hon. Member for Mayo (Mr. O'Connor Power) moved to report Progress, and he did so for the purpose of calling attention to the absence of Irish Volunteers from the English Volunteer Vote. The Government protested against the course that was being taken, and entered into a long contest with a small number of Irish Members. The usual course was followed—namely, Motions to report Progress, followed by Motions that the Chairman do leave the Chair, and various attempts to count out the House. Several scenes, so common on those occasions, took place, and all I would call attention to is the concluding observation of the remaining Member of the Government (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson), who was then the sole occupant of the Treasury Bench. He said that— The probable result of the course pursued would be an alteration of the Rules of Debate, and a curtailment of the privileges of Members. Notice was then taken that there were not 40 Members present, and the House stood adjourned at a quarter past 7 in the morning.

SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH

said, the remarks of the noble Lord who had just sat down were very interesting, and threw some light on the intention of the Government as to the further progress of the proposition now before the House. He understood the noble Lord distinctly to state—and he heard it with great satisfaction—that in the proposals Her Majesty's Government had submitted with a view to restrict debate, they had had in their minds only the fact that there was a certain section of Members in the House who were unwilling to defer to the general opinion of the House. No one would for a moment venture to suggest that that could be truly stated of the whole of the Members who sat upon that (the Opposition) side of the House, or of the minority of one, whatever Government might be in Office. He hoped, therefore, that they might have some further statement, when they came to the proposal of his right hon. and learned Friend the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson), which would show that Her Majesty's Government were prepared to adopt that proposal to meet the evil they really desired to put down. The noble Lord had gone on to say that he would give them an example of the way in which Votes in Supply had been obstructed under the present system. The noble Lord had not ventured to suggest that Votes in Supply had ever been obstructed by the general body of the Opposition in that House. The noble Lord had simply quoted instances where, both in the time of the present Government and in the time of their Predecessors, the Irish Votes had been resisted by a very small minority indeed. The noble Lord had gone on to say that the hon. Gentleman who was Secretary to the Treasury (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson) on one occasion, when Obstruction in Supply was practised, expressed his opinion that the privileges of Members in debate must in some degree be restricted. That was undoubtedly true, and it was proposed to restrict the privileges of Members in debate in Supply precisely on those points on which Obstruction then proceeded; for what did he find in the 2nd Resolution that the Prime Minister had placed on the Paper? He found there certain provisions laid down that, if adopted, would render it absolutely impossible for any small number of Members to defer a Vote taken in Supply by the means adopted on the occasion referred to. And, again, he found that Obstructive Motions of the kind mentioned, and which he had no doubt had been made use of on many occasions, were to be put down by the authority of the Speaker, or Chairman of Ways and Means, without appeal of any kind to the House. He certainly must say that, looking at these proposals of the Government, it seemed to him that everything that was necessary to enable the House to proceed fairly and properly with the consideration of Votes in Supply was met by the other proposals which Her Majesty's Government had placed on the Paper, and that, in pressing the application of this particular Rule to Supply, they were pressing a Rule not required to deal with the topic they were discussing, and likely to be understood—as the hon. Gentleman the Member for Stafford (Mr. Salt) had said—by the country as limiting the privilege of debate in Supply, which was the proudest privilege of the House.

SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOT

said, he had sat patiently three-quarters of an hour which the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister had said would enable the House to dispose of the Amendment, and yet the discussion had not terminated. They were in the middle of a most important debate with reference to Supply; and the Prime Minister himself, knowing the importance of the discussion, and knowing the time that had elapsed, would not, he would venture to say, further object to adjournment. He (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) would, therefore, move the adjournment of the debate.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Sir Walter B. Barttelot.)

MR. GLADSTONE

I am very sorry the hon. and gallant Baronet has moved the adjournment of the debate. [Sir WALTER B. BARTTELOT: Why?] Because it appears to me to be a pure loss of time. In my opinion, the question is a very fair one to raise; but it is one of limited scope. ["No, no!"] Yes; I think so. We have discussed it and sifted it tolerably well. I have a high opinion of the ingenuity of several hon. Members of the House; but it seems to me that even they must be unable to discover new topics for discussion on this Amendment. However, as this is the first night of the debate, I will assent to what appears to be the general wish of the House—namely, to the adjournment of the House.

SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOT

said, he would withdraw his Motion for the adjournment of the debate.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Debate adjourned till To-morrow.

House adjourned at One o'clock.