§ LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLI rise with the intention of asking the permission of the House to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of calling attention to grave matters of urgent public importance.
§ MR. SPEAKERThe noble Lord the Member for Woodstock is bound to produce a written Notice, setting forth the matter of urgent public importance to which he alludes.
§ MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTBefore that, Mr. Speaker—["Order, order!"] Mr. Speaker, I rise to call your attention—["Order, order!"] I wish for a clear ruling on the point of Order I just asked you—["Name, name!"] On the point of Order, Mr. Speaker—["Name, name!" and "Order, order!"]
§ MR. SPEAKERI have to point out to the hon. Member for Eye that the course which he proposes to take is altogether irregular. The noble Lord rose to move the Adjournment of the House, and the House is now considering the point raised by the noble Lord.
§ LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL, having written the Notice of Motion at the Table, read from it as follows:—I ask the permission of the House to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance—namely, the refusal of Her Majesty's Government to continue the Debate on the Amendment moved to the Address by the Eight honourable Gentleman the Member for King's Lynn.
§ MR. SPEAKERThe Standing Order referring to this matter lays it down that when the Motion for the Adjournment of the House be made, the Member so making the Motion must state, in writing, that it is for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance. It will be for the House to say whether the matter proposed to be brought forward by the noble Lord is a matter of urgent public importance. Having stated that to the House, I will ask whether the noble Lord is supported by 40 Members of this House in the proposal which he now makes?
And not less than 40 Members having risen in their places,
§ LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLSir, the matter which I wish to bring under the notice of this House in this somewhat unusual manner is an urgent matter, but need not necessarily occupy the House to a very large extent, and, if the matter is satisfactorily elucidated, it will conduce most assuredly to the proper progress of Business. By the incidents which took place last night, the debate on the Address, to which the whole country had been looking forward with the greatest possible anxiety and interest, was turned into a perfect farce. The parties who are solely responsible for that degradation of the most important proceedings of the House of Commons are Her Majesty's Government, and, ingenious as the Prime Minister usually is in explaining inexplicable matters, I defy him to give a satisfactory explanation of the conduct of the Government last night. What took place? My right hon. Friend the Member for King's Lynn (Mr. Bourke), in a speech of considerable length, marked with all his usual knowledge and ability, moved a Vote of Censure on Her Majesty's Government. That Vote of Censure was moved by the authority and at the request of the Leader of Her Majesty's Opposition. When my right hon. Friend concluded his speech, not a single Member of Her Majesty's Government thought it worth while to answer him. By the almost invariable practice of the House, whenever an hon. Gentleman who has held the high and important Office which my right hon. Friend has held moves a Vote of Censure on the Government, his speech has always been replied to by a Member of Her Majesty's Government; and no empty, ridiculous consideration of whether it was consistent with the dignity of a Cabinet Minister to speak in the dinner hour, or as to what is the number of Members a Liberal Minister requires in the House before he will make a speech, have ever before been allowed to interrupt the established practice. [Mr. GLADSTONE: Hear, hear!] I hope the right hon. Gentleman, who seems to disagree with that remark, will bring instances of a Vote of Censure moved by a Gentleman of the position of my right hon. Friend being left unreplied to at the moment by some Minister of the Crown. The Opposition had been informed last night that the President of 103 the Local Government Board (Sir Charles W. Dilke), who is supposed to be acquainted with, foreign affairs, would reply to my right hon. Friend when he concluded; but perhaps it may have been from some accident that he did not happen to be in his place. [Sir WILLIAM HARCOURT: He was.] Of course, it is impossible for me to decide as to the exact locality in which the President of the Local Government Board found himself at that particular hour. No doubt, he was in the neighbourhood. But whether he was there or not, if he did not consider it consistent with his dignity to address the House at that particular hour, there was the noble Lord the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. Is the House to be told that because the Under Secretary of State does not consider it consistent with his dignity to speak to a limited number of Members, a debate of the utmost public importance raised by the Opposition is not to be continued? These are altogether novel practices in the House of Commons. We owe them to Her Majesty's Government. I do not know whether they are to be included in the New Rules of the House; but, if they are, the sooner we know it the better. All I can say is, that they are innovations—and disastrous innovations. The entire country was looking forward to an elucidation of the Egyptian Question. The whole question has been raised in the most pointed form, and Her Majesty's Government have refused to take part in the debate. What, I want to know, has Parliament been summoned for? It is perfectly impossible that the Opposition can continue to discharge their duty to the country unless Her Majesty's Government are prepared to recognize some responsibilities on their part. And what has been the result of this calculated evasion of the Government? The result has been that we cannot now satisfy an anxious country by a discussion of the affairs of Egypt, and especially of the terrible disaster which has taken place within the last 48 hours, until Heaven knows when—possibly not for a fortnight, because who can tell how long the affairs of Ireland may occupy us? The Opposition has been fettered, and I decline altogether to consider that that action has been accidental. I consider that the Opposition has been fettered by the pusillani- 104 mous conduct of the Government, who were knocked head over heels by the information which reached them when the hon. Member for Roxburghshire (Mr. Arthur Elliot) was moving the Address, and purposely arranged to allow the debate to collapse. If this kind of proceeding is to be continued, let us have it from the right hon. Gentleman at the Table, and we shall know what course to take; otherwise Parliamentary discussion will become an absurdity and a farce. I think I am justified, therefore, in calling the attention of the House to this most extraordinary and unprecedented circumstance; because, unless a satisfactory explanation is offered, the Opposition will have to consider what steps it will be necessary for them to take to discharge their duty to the country. The noble Lord concluded by moving the Adjournment of the House.
§ MR. CHAPLINI wish to second the Motion for the Adjournment of the House, and I think that the House is much indebted to the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill) for bringing it forward. Some observations were made last night with reference to the conduct of the Government in this matter, and I myself entirely endorse the language used by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Stanhope). The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sir William Harcourt) took the opportunity of saying that he thought it was unjust and injurious in the extreme. It was just possible that the right hon. Gentleman might have been justified in those assertions if this had been the first occasion of similar conduct on the part of the Government. But it was by no moans so. I remember that on the second reading of the Irish Land Bill my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson) moved the rejection of the Bill in a powerful speech. What was the action of the Government? Why, they sat absolutely silent on the Front Bench. The debate was about to collapse; indeed, it had collapsed, because the Speaker put the Question to the House, and still no Member of the Government rose; and not only so, but a distinguished Member of the House, who was at the time a Member of the Government, 105 cried "Divide, divide!" and did everything that he could to precipitate a Division on that occasion. Having this past experience of the Government, we look upon these proceedings naturally with more suspicion than we otherwise should do. And what is the excuse? I do not know yet whether the right hon. Baronet the President of the Local Government Board was in his place or not. All I can say is that his position appears to be one of a most unfortunate character. If he was in his place, he is more to be blamed than I thought for not getting up to reply; if he was not in his place, it was probably for some very good reason of his own. The Government stated distinctly that they had no intention of taking a snatch Division on this question. Probably that was true. I do not suppose that anybody, even in this Government, deliberately came down to the House with the intention of taking a snatch Division on the Motion for a Vote of Censure; but what we complain of is this—that when the Government saw the opportunity before them of taking a snatch Division, they did not scruple for a single instant to avail themselves of it. I do not believe that the Government is likely to gain much by these proceedings, and I am satisfied that as soon as they are understood and appreciated by the country and by the public out-of-doors they will leave their impression on the public mind. Such conduct is most unbecoming in the Government of this country, and it is all the more important when we look at the extreme gravity of the circumstances attending it. When the Government of Lord Beaconsfield was in power, it was accused, on all occasions, of trying to conceal everything from Parliament and the country. I ask whether such a charge does not more fairly lie against the present Ministry? I believe that the country will think that, however such conduct may, perhaps, be expected from pettifogging attorneys, it is the last thing to be looked for from Gentlemen occupying the high position of Ministers of the Crown.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—(Lord Randolph Churchill.)
MR. GLADSTONESir, the language that has been used by the hon. 106 Gentleman who has just sat down (Mr. Chaplin), in his closing and gross imputations against the honour, the motives, and the conduct of the Government, is language which, considering the slightness of the evidence by which it was supported, I think it entirely beyond my province to notice. The graver a charge may be—when it is, at any rate, plausibly or colourably sustained by evidence—the clearer is the duty of the Government to deal with that charge, however offensive may be its character; but when there is no evidence to warrant such a charge, in my opinion they best consult their own dignity and their duty to the House by passing it by in absolute silence. That observation applies, though in a less degree, to some parts of the speech of the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill); but I will confine myself to what appears to me strictly relevant to the question which has been raised by the noble Lord. I am under the impression that, as regards what is termed the refusal of the Government to continue the debate upon Egypt, that matter was discussed upon a Motion raised for the purpose last night by the hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. A. J. Balfour), when most of those who sit upon the Front Opposition Bench gave their views in regard to it. At the close of that discussion, the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir E. Assheton Cross) referred to the points that had been raised, and treated it as a matter which had been disposed of by the statements which had been made, and by the view which he and his Friends took of the practical course that they were to pursue. Neither the noble Lord who has made this Motion, nor the hon. Gentleman who has seconded it, was in his place during the discussion, and in consequence of their absence the House of Commons is now called upon to traverse the ground again. That being the cause of the present Motion, I will just notice what the noble Lord said with regard to the great misfortune that had happened to the Opposition in consequence of the occurrence of last night, which I shall not call any more an accidental occurrence, though it was accidental, because I should again subject myself to offensive imputations such as we have just heard. But the amount of the misfortune is this 107 —I think it a very great misfortune so far as I am concerned myself, to the Government. I was extremely anxious to have an opportunity of discussing more broadly than it was discussed by the right hon. Gentleman last night the subject of the policy of the Government in Egypt, and to show the true spring, the true origin, the true character, of the embarrassments to which we are at present exposed. I conceive, therefore, that if there be a misfortune in the delay which has occurred, the misfortune is one which considerably affects the Government. But, Sir, as it affects the House, the amount of the misfortune is this—that this debate must be taken by the ruling which you, Sir, have delivered from the Chair, in conformity, as I believe, with the well-understood principles that govern our debates—this debate cannot be taken upon the Address, and must be taken upon the Report of the Address, as was done with the Vote of Want of Confidence referred to last night during the time of the late Government in relation to Afghanistan. Well, Sir, is that a great misfortune? That is exactly the proposition which I desire to question; for the right hon. Gentleman himself last night stated that he made his Motion in the absence of authentic documents and of official information. In consequence, the right hon. Gentleman was compelled—quoting from the best sources that he could—to make statements with regard to the bases of which he had to confess very naturally his uncertainty. Well, Sir, the Government have done the best in their power to supply that lack, and to-day Papers rather voluminous have been circulated—they were laid on the Table last night—which will necessarily take a day or two for hon. Members to make themselves masters of. The consequence is, that if we had gone on last night, and carried on the adjourned debate to-day, we should still have been upon the basis of uncertain information. The facts of the case would not have been before the House in a shape in which it could deal with them. I do not say that would have constituted any difficulty to the Government. We could have spoken from the information which we possessed; but it would have constituted a great difficulty for the Opposition. The noble Lord (Lord Randolph Churchill) says it may be a fortnight hence before 108 we shall be able to approach the subject again, and he speaks of innovation. In what I am going to say, I do not intend to refer to the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman opposite. He had a perfect right to make such a Motion if he pleased; but undoubtedly a most pernicious innovation, in my judgment, has appeared in this House within the last two or three years—namely, that of discussing all manner of subjects on the Address, without the possibility, in many instances, of any practical issue. I can only say that the Government will, as far as they are concerned, and as far as their duty will permit, refuse to be a party to the encouragement of such proceedings. I hope that the noble Lord's estimate is entirely exaggerated. I cannot conceive that there should be any such delay. But even if there were, it would be better to have an authentic debate on the basis of unquestionable facts than a debate founded on information of an irresponsible character. The noble Lord has come forward on this occasion, founding himself upon his long Parliamentary experience, to explain to us what is the uniform course taken in a debate of Want of Confidence. He says the course is that, whatever be the hour of the evening, it is the duty of the Minister who is to reply to rise immediately after the speech of the person who has made the Motion.
§ LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLI said when the person occupies a position like that of my right hon. Friend (Mr. Bourke).
MR. GLADSTONEThat is quite an unnecessary addition. I did not speak of every random Motion of every random Member which may be made. I spoke of a Vote of Want of Confidence. On that question I join issue with the noble Lord. The noble Lord has the happiness of being one or two generations later than myself on the roll of the human family; that being so, and as my Parliamentary life commenced almost immediately after my nonage had disappeared and I attained my legal majority, I am in a condition to speak to the noble Lord, I think, with some experience; and what I am disposed to affirm is, that so far as my knowledge goes, strange as it may seem, when it has happened that the Motion made has occupied the House till the hour of half-past 7 or 8 o'clock, it has never been 109 the custom for the Minister who is to reply on the part of the Government to rise at that hour. Of course I am speaking from recollection. Hon. Gentlemen are here who have sat long in the House, and cases may perhaps be quoted. The only case that arises to my memory is one that I admit may be partial in its application. But I remember this perfectly well—that in, I think, 1863, Mr. Disraeli, then the Leader of the Opposition, moved a Vote of Want of Confidence against Her Majesty's Government, and that it was my duty to reply to that speech, and that when the clock reached the hour of 7, Lord Palmerston began to remonstrate with me upon the question whether I was to follow him at an hour so near the dinner hour. Mr. Disraeli spoke, I think, till a quarter past 7, or something between that and half-past 7, and I being, perhaps, very desirous to get rid of the subject, and it being not the hour of 8 o'clock, I rose and followed him, and I was very much remonstrated with by Members of the House, and particularly by Gentlemen on our own side of the House, for having delivered the defence of the Government to an empty House; and that, Sir, was not a case of 8 o'clock. It was a question which we reserved, according to the moment, when Mr. Disraeli should sit down, and it was perfectly understood between us, on the authority of Lord Palmerston, whose experience went 40 years farther back, that if Mr. Disraeli had spoken a quarter of an hour later, I was to postpone my reply to a later hour of the evening. And that, Sir, I venture to affirm, is the Parliamentary usage. It has been said by the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock that my right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board was considering his own dignity. I venture to say that the noble Lord does not himself believe that accusation. He surely does not believe that my right hon. Friend could be so poor and so comtemptible a creature as to be governed by such a motive on such an occasion. My right hon. Friend was considering the duty he owed to the House, and the known usage of Parliament. It is not a usage of Parliament for a Minister, on a grave occasion of that kind, to rise at that hour to address perhaps 20 Members on one side of the House, and perhaps less than 20 Members on the other. What 110 was the position last night? The noble Lord says it was the absolute duty of ray right hon. Friend to have risen and delivered the defence of the Government. I presume, Sir, the noble Lord thinks the debates of this House mean something, and that when the Government rises to deliver its defence, it is to deliver it in the face of its accusers; that the accusers are to hear it; that they are to pay to it something of attention, refraining, perhaps, from interruption as much as they can; and that the accusers are to be present in reasonable numbers to hear the defence. Now, Sir, what was the number of accusers present last night, not the number present on the Benches—and I am not now appealing to the noble Lord to give us the advantage of his personal experience, for he took good care not to be here, but the number in the House and the purlieus and the Dining Room—what was it? [Crics of "Twenty!"] The whole number that could be brought together when the bell was rung and the Division called was 20, and the charge against my right hon. Friend and the Government is, that in conformity with the usages of Parliament, they did not cause a Minister to rise and deliver the responsible defence of the Government against the accusation raised against the existence of the Government in the presence of 20 Members if you like—although I do not believe there were 10. At the same time, I fully admit that that is only upon the assumption that other Members are willing to continue the debate. What I now speak to is the accusation that, at the time when the hon. Member for Greenwich (Baron Henry De Worms) rose in the debate, my right hon. Friend was extremely reluctant to rise. I think he was perfectly right. That being so, through some cause of which I am not aware, my right hon. Friend was out of the way when the hon. Member for Greenwich sat down. He reckoned upon a succession of Members to continue the debate. [Baron HENRY DE WORMS: On which side?] He stated last night that he expected a succession of Members on both sides. Well, I have made inquiry, and find we had made some efforts to induce Members on this side of the House to speak and continue the debate. I was not here; I left the House at 25 minutes past 8, and returned at 25 minutes to 9, and was not personally a 111 party to the proceedings. But I own I have found very great reluctance on the part of Members on this side of the House to enter into the debate. ["Hear, hear!"] That is rather a provocation to me to state the reasons why. In my opinion they were the strongest reasons possible, and only a proof of the good sense and discrimination of hon. Gentlemen on this side of the House, who, I think, considered that they would do well to have something in the nature of certain information before they proceeded to discuss a question involving the existence of the Government. But it must also be admitted that there was not very great inclination to continue the debate on the other side of the House. It is not an unprecedented event at all that several Members taking the same view have continued the debate without the intervention of anyone taking an opposite view. Why, Sir, in the case of hon. Gentlemen sitting in that (the Parnellite) quarter of the House, again and again they have been compelled to continue debates by long successions of Members of their own opinion. Well, I say that they are entitled to the same respectful treatment as any other Members of the House. The laws of debate recognize no distinction between one body of Members and another, and I certainly admit that when I went away I had confidence in the hon. Member for Greenwich. I thought the hon. Member was going to make a speech of considerable length, and that I was safe to find him on his legs after a moderate interval. For the future, Sir, I withdraw that confidence from the hon. Member for Greenwich. On other occasions when he rises, I shall deem it within the limits of possibility that he may make short speeches. I have no doubt that if the little interval between half-past 8 and half-past 9 had been bridged over, the debate would have been continued. I have only spoken as to the reason why my right hon. Friend did not rise. His course at that time was absolutely in conformity with all that I know of the usages of this House. When the hon. Member for Greenwich sat down, my right hon. Friend was not in his place. But I am authorized by him to say—and the reason of the case I think demands it—that, great as would have been the disadvantage of rising at half-past 8 o'clock, yet it 112 would have been right that he should have risen for the purpose of giving the defence of the Government in reply to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, rather than allow the House to divide, and the debate to fall through. He was out of his place accidentally, and had he been in his place I am authorized to say he would have risen, rather than allowed the Division to be taken. But, he not being in his place, the storm has descended to-day on the head of my noble Friend the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice). But last night my noble Friend was expressly acquitted, because it was felt that it was not possible to make a substitution at that moment under the circumstances. But I would not rest his defence upon that, because such is the knowledge that my noble Friend possesses of the affairs of his Department, that he would have been perfectly competent to go over every point of the speech of the hon. Member. I must, therefore, take upon myself the responsibility distinctly of my noble Friend's not having spoken. We had been told from the other side that the debate was to last for three days, and I must say I have never found that Gentlemen on the other side, when they make an announcement of that kind, fail in fulfilling it. In that description of promise I find them entirely trustworthy. That being so, it was my duty to have some regard to the course of the debate, and to make arrangements for the proper defence of the Government; and I said to my noble Friend—"It is quite obvious that, in the course of a debate of this kind, a multitude of unauthenticated and detailed statements must be brought forward. You are the person who, from your acquaintance with the daily course of the Correspondence in the Foreign Office, can deal most satisfactorily with statements of detail of that character. For that reason it is arranged that you shall reserve yourself until the debate is far advanced." That was the arrangement made, I think, in conformity with common sense, and with the view of enabling the House to have the whole case dealt with in the most satisfactory manner. In these circumstances, my noble Friend, I believe, judging quite rightly, deemed that it was not his duty to put himself in the place which had been reserved for 113 my right hon. Friend (Sir Charles W. Dilke). I make this statement because I wish it to be clearly understood that, while I contend there is no duty on the part of the Government to put up their defender, their champion, at the moment when the accuser sits down, if that moment be one when he cannot expect to have any reasonable proportion of the House in attendance, yet I must admit, on the other hand, that it is a very important duty of the Government to prevent, if they can, the collapse of the debate; and, therefore, if my right hon. Friend had been in his place, it would have been his duty to rise, and he would have risen, notwithstanding all the disadvantages, for the purpose of avoiding the great evil of a collapse. I have, I think, made every fair admission, and I have given, I believe, an account of the facts which is absolutely accurate. This is the principle on which the Government have acted, and I doubt whether the noble Lord will find it practicable to guide the House in any other way. For myself, I am most anxious for the time to come when we shall have an opportunity of making something like a thorough statement, which I do not conceive to have been yet heard, of the true merits of this Egyptian Question, and I regret exceedingly that a short delay has interposed, though I feel it is greatly compensated by the fact that Gentlemen opposite will have an opportunity of making their attack upon the Government, when they do make it, upon the basis of authenticated information.
§ SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEI am bound to say, Sir, it seems to me that the observations of the right hon. Gentleman, far from elucidating, are calculated to confuse the issue before us. It is not really the question whether the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board (Sir Charles W. Dilke) was or was not in his place at a particular time, or whether he or the noble Lord (Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice), or any other person in particular, should have been put up under particular circumstances. The question is as to the course pursued by the Government as a whole. I think that, under any circumstances, it will be admitted without going into all the precedents that might be found of cases in which debates had been pursued in a particular course at the dinner hour. It seems a 114 principle that commends itself to common-sense that when a serious accusation is made by a responsible Member of the House, with due Notice, and of a character impugning the conduct of Her Majesty's Government, it is the duty of Her Majesty's Government, as speedily as possible, to give their answer to that charge. And in this case, from the arguments used by the right hon. Gentleman himself, and from the arguments we heard last night, it is quite clear that it was more than ordinarily their duty to do so last night. And why do I say that? Because they tell us that they have a great deal of information that we have not. Therefore it was extremely important that they should as early as possible meet the statements of my right hon. Friend the Member for King's Lynn (Mr. Bourke), and supply to the House for its discussion the subject-matter which we did not possess. Now, Sir, with regard to the particular arrangements, they were made in the manner which is usual in this House. We knew perfectly how the Business must begin. I myself calculated with some accuracy, and was rather proud of the calculation, when the speeches of the Mover and Seconder of the Address would be concluded. I calculated that it would be between half-past 6 and a quarter to 7. The speeches ended, and the opportunity for moving the Amendment came on, at a quarter to 7. My right hon. Friend did not lose a moment in bringing forward his Motion, but got up then and there to make the statement that he had to make. Everybody must have foreseen that it would be one of considerable length, and my right hon. Friend caused no delay in the course of his speech by introducing irrelevant matter. His speech was concise, though naturally extending over some time. Therefore no one could have expected a shorter speech on such an occasion. It was therefore obvious that the speech would be over before 8 o'clock. It was perfectly within the power of the Government to have intimated to Gentlemen on this side of the House that, if the speech ended about that hour, it would be inconvenient for the Government Representative to rise, and some arrangement must be come to. It would have been quite easy for the Government to have continued the debate; and, indeed, the 115 information we received was this—that the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board would make the answer. And not only was it made in these general terms; the information that was given to mo was that the right hon. Gentleman would follow, and I was asked who would follow him. I knew that my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich (Baron Henry De Worms) was to take part in the debate, and it occurred to me that he might be a Gentleman to be asked for that purpose. I asked him, and he said he was quite ready to follow the right hon. Gentleman. Well, the speech of my right hon. Friend near me (Mr. Bourke) came to a conclusion, and no one showed the slightest sign of rising. No provision had been made by the Government to provide a substitute. We were therefore left in a position of considerable difficulty and embarrassment. You, Sir, rose and put the Question. You had put the Question, when it appeared to us absolutely necessary that something should be done, and we appealed to my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich to rise at a moment's notice. He did so, and was naturally thrown out in so doing, because he had looked to hear and reply to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman. But my hon. Friend came forward without the slightest hesitation and made his speech, and while he was going on the right hon. Gentleman (Sir Charles W. Dilke) left the Front Bench. While that speech was going on, the Government might have made some provision to secure a succession of speakers, and we naturally looked for someone on the other side of a responsible character to follow. But they do not, and the same thing happens again, and when it is asked, why did not the Opposition continue the debate, seeing that one Member had been called upon suddenly and had responded, it seems to me quite unreasonable to expect that any hon. Member on this side should begin again without notice, but that, if the matter was left altogether to the last moment, someone else, if not the noble Lord, would have risen to answer the important speech which was made by my right hon. Friend. I think the course which the Government have pursued—I do not wish to impute motives, of course—was one that was not worthy of a Government placed in such 116 a position, Let it be remembered how the matter stood. The Government were placed in this position. They were impugned after solemn notice—impugned in the most important part of their policy—impugned in a speech of very great length and importance. They were themselves thoroughly in possession of a large amount of information of which the House was deprived. Yet they allowed the House to proceed to the debate in the state of ignorance in which they left us, and they sat still, none of their supporters rising to speak. What inference we are to draw from the fact that no supporter of the Government was ready to accord their policy his support, although, as we hear, efforts were made to induce them to speak, I leave the House to consider. But I do say that my noble Friend is perfectly justified in doing that which, in similar circumstances, always has been done in any Parliament in which I have sat—namely, to inquire, on behalf of those who were not present, the next day what was done, what the circumstances were, and ask for some explanation. It is perfectly true that last night, about 10 o'clock, an explanation was made to those who happened to be present, but a large number of those now in attendance were not then in the House, and my noble Friend, as I think, has been thoroughly justified in calling attention to what passed last night; and I think his action will result in advantage to the public and the House.
MR. JOSEPH COWENsaid, he thought the House would accept the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister's statement, without more ado, that the collapse last night was accidental. He thought, too, that although it might have inconvenienced hon. Members, the delay would ultimately be advantageous, for they would have more detailed information when the debate was resumed. He did not, however, wish to press that part of the subject further; but he would like to draw a practical conclusion from what had taken place. He had often heard the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister condemn the increasing loquacity of hon. Members, and he thoroughly sympathized with him; but he could not help feeling that the speech they had just heard was an indirect incentive to talkativeness—if not to Obstruction. What did the right 117 hon. Gentleman's remarks amount to but this—that the Opposition should have kept the debate going during the dinner hour, simply for the purpose of allowing the right hon. Baronet the President of the Local Government Board (Sir Charles W. Dilke) to have a better audience afterwards. This was the practice that Ministers so often condemned hon. Gentlemen on the other side for resorting to—speaking one after another on the same subject and in the same sense, so that the debate might be carried over a given hour or a given night. If that was not talking to no purpose and wasting the time of Parliament for obstructive ends, he (Mr. Cowen) did not know the meaning of language. It arose out of the arrangement—the foolish arrangement—by which the House was deserted for two or three hours in the middle of the night. During any great discussion everyone knew that the Whips went about begging for hon. Members to carry on the debate at dinner time; and these unfortunate Members were condemned, by those who did not know the Forms of the House, for their garrulity, or their vanity. It was said they talked when nobody wanted to hear them, and that, rather than not speak at all, they spoke to empty Benches; the truth being that they talked simply to suit the convenience of their Party, and at the instance of the Whips. He thought it was a great waste of time. It was to the interest of all to abolish this plan of Party padding. It could be done in only two ways. The first was, by Ministers making a practice of speaking during the dinner hour, and thereby keeping hon. Members in their places. This was a practice that the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department advocated last Parliament. With the chivalry that so much distinguished the right hon. Gentleman, he then said he thought it was the duty of men of position and authority in the House to make a practice of speaking on important subjects during those dreary hours, and he put his theory in practice, because he did on several occasions deliver important speeches at that time. Now, if the right hon. Gentleman could influence his Colleagues to follow his example, it would be of service. That was one way of curing the evil. Another way—and 118 probably the more satisfactory one—would be for the House to meet a couple of hours sooner, and adjourn for a couple of hours for dinner. It would relieve the officers of the House; it would be a great convenience to Members; and the Business would advance more orderly and rapidly. Members were constantly talking about amending the mode of Business, and they could not do better than try to initiate a reform in this direction. His hon. Friend the Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin) had said that the ease of last night was not a solitary one. He (Mr. Cowen) would go further, and say it was not only not a solitary one, but that it was common. Reference had been made to the way in which the debate on the second reading of the Irish Land Bill had been abruptly shut up; but there was another and more recent case that the House seemed to have overlooked. Last year his hon. Friend the Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) made a powerful and eloquent indictment of the Government policy in Ireland. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland was in his place, but refused to answer, because it was the dinner hour. The result was that a night was lost. During the whole of the year the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister never ceased to express his mortification at the waste of time that took place over the Address; and yet that incident contributed more to it than any other circumstance. They might look forward to a repetition of such occurrences unless they adopted one or other of the courses he had suggested—that Ministers should speak during the dinner hour as well as other hon. Members, or that they should meet earlier and adjourn for dinner. If the break-down last night led to either of these reforms, it would not be without its advantages.
§ SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFsaid, the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister had taken a contrary line to that followed by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sir William Harcourt) last night. The right hon. Gentleman told the House that it was expected independent Members would take part in the debate. They would remember that the same excuse was made by the Government with regard to the evasion of 119 discussion on the "Kilmainham Compact." The elaborate nature of the excuses made by the right hon. Gentleman led them to believe that there was some hidden intention on the part of the Government that the debate should collapse. ["No, no!"] Of course, if the right hon. Gentleman denied it, he would accept the denial. The right hon. Gentleman told them that in a certain debate, some years ago, Lord Palmerston begged him not to speak early in it. This was brought forward as a precedent; but it appeared that the right hon. Gentleman disobeyed Lord Palmerston on that occasion, as he (Sir H. Drummond Wolff) believed the right hon. Gentleman often did. They had not now subordinates amongst the supporters of the Government so patriotic as to disobey the right hon. Gentleman. The right hon. Gentleman said he made a speech last night to the noble Lord the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, and forbade him to speak, even though a collapse of the debate was the result.
§ SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFDid the right hon. Gentleman deny that?
MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he had laid no such injunction on his noble Friend. He told him it was his (Mr. Gladstone's) duty to make arrangements, and he discussed those arrangements with him.
§ SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFsaid, the right hon. Gentleman told them distinctly that he told the noble Lord not to speak. Therefore, what happened? They knew that it was not from any mental incapacity or unreadiness of the noble Lord; they were told that he was quite ready to speak, that he knew the whole question, and could have given a most formidable answer to the charge of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for King's Lynn (Mr. Bourke); but, notwithstanding all this, he was not allowed to speak. Surely, when the right hon. Gentleman saw the debate was going to collapse from the absence of any speech on behalf of the Government, he might have withdrawn his veto from the noble Lord.
§ SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFThen, in that case, there was a certain amount of tyranny on the part of the right hon. Gentleman. He would not 120 allow his subordinates to act in any kind of way during his absence. The right hon. Gentleman told them they had not lost very much by the adjournment of the debate, and that the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill), and the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin), ought to have been present at the time. Why were they not? Because they were foolish enough to rely, he (Sir H. Drummond Wolff) might say, upon the assurances of the Government, that the debate was not to collapse in the manner it did. But the right hon. Gentleman went on to say, with a frivolity totally unworthy of the occasion, and unheard of when such terrible disasters were occurring, that they had lost nothing by the collapse of the debate. If the House had been sitting when Hicks Pasha and his Army were destroyed in November last, did the right hon. Gentleman think that it would not have given some impulse to the proceedings of the Government? Last night they heard of another terrible disaster in the Soudan. Did the right hon. Gentleman look with equanimity and indifference on matters of that kind? He (Sir H. Drummond Wolff) was told that news had been received to-day of the destruction of Tewfik's Army, and the capture of Sinkat. He asked the Government to tell them if that was true. In the midst of these disasters, while blood was being poured out in the Soudan, owing entirely to the action of Her Majesty's Government, the right hon. Gentleman smiled—["No, no!"] He did smile—he who wrote the Lessons in Massacre—who moved the House and agitated the country about what took place in Bulgaria. ["Oh, oh!"] Perhaps the hon. and learned Member for Stockport (Mr. Hopwood) would permit him to finish. The Prime Minister agitated the country about the massacres in Bulgaria; but was there no blood-guiltiness in Egypt for what had happened in the Soudan? Would these disasters have happened in the Soudan but for the action taken by Her Majesty's Government in Egypt?
§ MR. SPEAKERI must call the attention of the hon. Gentleman to the matter of urgent public importance before the House. The hon. Member is travelling beyond that matter altogether.
§ SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFsaid, he merely wished to explain that these urgent matters of public importance could not be discussed in consequence of the action of the Government, and he was answering the remark of the Prime Minister that no damage to the Public Service resulted from the collapse of the debate. If, however, the Speaker forbade him from going into these questions, which were started by the right hon. Gentleman, he would bow to the decision; but he must say the conduct of the Government in adjourning, or allowing the collapse of the debate on the Egyptian Question, showed an amount of indifference to human suffering, and of callousness of bloodshed, which had marked the whole course of Her Majesty's Government in every country whore they had any policy to carry out, and that they had showed that callousness in a manner which he thought was degrading to an Administration.
MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, that, without for one moment presuming to cast the slightest doubt on the accuracy of the statements of the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister, he must be permitted to observe that the tone in which the right hon. Gentleman replied to the thoroughly justifiable remarks of his hon. Friend the Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin), and of his noble Friend who moved the Adjournment (Lord Randolph Churchill), was absolutely unwarrantable. The right hon. Gentleman had said that he was not himself a party to any scheme for abruptly closing the debate. No one for a moment brought any such accusation against him. The right hon. Gentleman was not charged with the management of details of that kind; he had the assistance of Colleagues who were admirably suited to discharge that duty. The right hon. Gentleman had assumed a tone of virtuous indignation at the charges brought against him; but what went before the occurrences of last night? Hon. Members could scarcely have forgotten that, during the last few weeks, the House had been steadily lectured by persons supposed to enjoy the confidence of the right hon. Gentleman. He did not wish, of course, to make the right hon. Gentleman responsible for the extremely indecorous menaces addressed to Her Majesty's Op- 122 position by organs of the Press which were generally supposed to be inspired by him, or his Colleagues. He would not insult the right hon. Gentleman by assuming that he was in sympathy with such proceedings. But he must remind the right hon. Gentleman that they were not dependent entirely on the inspired Press for their knowledge of the views of Her Majesty's Government with regard to proceedings in Parliament. They had an opportunity afforded them the other day, for which they were indebted to the industry of those creators of public opinion whose vocation appeared to be to teach the public what they ought to think. ["Question!"] They had been informed that the Prime Minister himself was desirous, as far as in his power lay, to deter the House from obtaining explanations, which it had a right to obtain, as to the course pursued in various Departments of the State—in other words, the Government were endeavouring to deter the House of Commons from discharging its obvious duties, and compelling it to join in the pursuit of the red herring which the Government had announced it to be their intention to draw across the scent. ["Question!"] He ventured to think that the hon. Member who cried "Question!" was very imperfectly acquainted with the Rules regulating debate, and he further must remind him that if he (Mr. Lowther) was in any way transgressing those Rules, Mr. Speaker would doubtless himself draw his attention to the fact, and not leave it to what the Prime Minister would call any "random" Member to assume to himself the functions of the Chair. He must again repeat that Her Majesty's Government were not in a position to assume that tone of virtuous indignation which they had arrogated to themselves on this occasion. Government, through its myrmidons in the Press, had distinctly laid itself open to the charge of wishing to prevent discussion in Parliament of affairs which it was the duty of Parliament to discuss. The "pernicious practice," as it was called" by the Prime Minister, of introducing into the debate upon the Address various subjects, was owing to the fact that the Government had placed the House of Commons in such a position that unless they introduced these various subjects 123 on the Address to the Throne they were—as was said in one portion of the Marriage Service—ever after to hold their peace. Under those circumstances, it was not to be wondered at that the House of Commons availed itself of the only opportunity they had to discuss matters of national interest.
§ Question put, and negatived.