MOTION FOR MEETING OF COMMITTEES (Hansard, 2 May 1883)

MR. GLADSTONE
I rise, Sir, to make the Motion of which I have given Notice, and I need not say more than a few sentences in submitting it to the House. It is, I believe, framed in the usual terms, and I understand it to be based upon the religious usages which affect the communities to which the vast majority of the Members of this House belong; and on that account the Motion has usually been allowed to pass, either with graceful concession on the part of those who do not partake of those precise usages, or with so much of protest as they have felt it right and necessary to make, but without exalting the matter into one of serious controversy, orinfusing any bitterness of feeling into the discussion. Having said that, I think that any argument of which the matter is susceptible has been fully dealt with, and perhaps exhausted, upon former occasions; and I do not feel justified, considering how valuable the time of the House is, and how well-informed it is upon the subject, in further detaining the House, but will simply place the Motion in your hands.

§ MR. ARTHUR ARNOLD
said, he hoped that the House would not accede to the Motion. He did not wish to say a word against the religious usages referred to; but he wished to call attention to the fact that in these times there had been great changes as to the methods and hours of attendance at Church Services. There was not a single Member who had not, probably within a few yards of his house, a church at which there would be a Service at 8 o'clock in the morning; and he would further add that there would be the less inconvenience in an early attendance, as the House would rise at 6 that evening. Another reason why the usual practice should be departed from on that occasion was that the Standing Committee on Law 1672 would meet to-morrow, and also several Select Committees, in one of which a large number of his constituents were interested, and which they were attending at an enormous expense. It was a matter of great moment that the prosecution of these inquiries should not be hindered. He hoped the Motion would not be agreed to.

MR. STAVELEY HILL
ventured to think that the Motion of the Prime Minister would be accepted by lion. Gentlemen on the Opposition side of the House in the spirit in which it had been made—that they would thus allow many to show respect for the Holy Day. He had practised for many years before Parliamentary Committees; and he could state that no inconvenience had been caused, and nothing was lost, by the two hours' adjournment on Ascension Day.

§ MR. GREGORY
said, that, as one of those who, in former years, had a good deal of business before Parliamentary Committees, he could fully endorse the statement of his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Staveley Hill) that the work of those Committees was never allowed to suffer in any degree from the observance of the usage to which the Motion before the House related. He hoped the House would accept that Motion in accordance with the custom it had so long maintained, and that the House would not be put to the trouble of a division on such a question.

§ MR. WARTON
, in supporting the Motion, objected to the hon. Member for Salford (Mr. Arthur Arnold) directing Members to go to church at 8 o'clock in the morning. It was his custom to attend Divine Service at 11 o'clock, and ho intended to do so on Ascension Day.

§ MR. ILLINGWORTH
said, he did not wish to weaken the force of any conviction that might be hold as to the sacred character of Ascension Day. At the same time, ho was rather surprised that the Prime Minister had not been able to show that the great majority of Members had been found to be at church when the opportunity was given them for attending on that day. If that could be shown, the feeling in favour of the adjournment would, doubtless, be respected by the minority. He was also somewhat surprised at the views put forward by the hon. and learned Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton), who had 1673 that morning been busily engaged in preventing Members from being present at the religious Service at the commencement of the proceedings of that House.

§ MR. WARTON
I rise to Order. I wish to ask if this has anything to do with Ascension Day?

§ THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Sir ARTHUR OTWAY)
I have not heard anything in the remarks of the hon. Member which appears to me to be at all out of Order.

§ MR. ILLINGWORTH
said, that as the hon. and learned Member for Bridport was so sensitive—[Mr. WARTON: Not at all.]—he would not pursue the point further. He objected to the Motion. It was an idle form. Hon. Members were not found at Church Services on Ascension Day; and the Motion, if agreed to, would cause much practical inconvenience to all those persons who were up in London from the country on Parliamentary Business, and to whom loss of time would be a serious matter; besides, he did not think that the House would be doing violence to the feelings of the Prime Minister if they tried to save public time to-morrow. It would be a great misfortune if the ordinary procedure of the Committees should be interfered with by the passing of this Resolution; and he felt satisfied that the great majority of people in the country would desire that the Public Business of the House should not be interrupted by this proposed adjournment.

MR. GORST
said, he considered that the opposition to the Motion was uncalled for, as the Motion was always made by the Government. The hon. Member spoke of Members of the House only; but he (Mr. Gorst) might be allowed to remind the House that there was a great number of officials in the House—Parliamentary Agents and others—who attended on business, and who expected that the Committees would not meet till 2 o'clock on Ascension Day; and no, doubt, all those persons had made arrangements accordingly. If the opposition to the Motion should be sanctioned, much inconvenience would be caused to those who had made their arrangements, as they would be in attendance. If it was intended to depart from the usual practice, the matter should be one for deliberate consideration, and be brought before the House on Motion. Then 1674 everyone would know what to expect, and no inconvenience would be caused.