§ MR. STEVENSONsaid, he rose to call attention to the Rules of Procedure on Wednesdays with respect to Bills in charge of private Members, and to move a Resolution for their amendment. He would not seek to disturb the admirable arrangement which secured to the House and the officials a free evening by the Rule which prevented the House sitting after 6 o'clock on Wednesday. But the Rule had been turned to a purpose never intended, and had been made the means of deliberately wasting the hours of the afternoon. He felt amply justified, therefore, in proposing some remedy for the grievance of "talking out" Bills. He was at a loss to understand how hon. Members could reconcile this practice with the honour and dignity of the illustrious Assembly of which they were Members. It was a great privilege, by the right of a seat in the House, to occupy the precious time of the House by speech which should never be used inconsistently with the dignity of the House and the welfare of the nation. This practice prevented both sides being properly represented in debate, the friends of a measure abstaining from speaking in its support, and the character of the debates was degraded by speeches made to waste time, and not addressed to the judgment and intelligence of the House. Private Members had large privileges on Tuesdays and Fridays of initiating debates; but Wednesday was their day for legislation. The stages of Bills on that day were known long beforehand; Members came down anxious to vote, and the public desired outside to learn the opinion of the House, and the greatest vexation and disappointment resulted from the action of one or two Members. People outside could not understand it. They said—Why not alter the Rules of the House? Any Town Council would be laughed at that wasted a whole afternoon, and did 659 not finish the first Business on the Agenda Paper. By the Resolution he proposed, the first Order on Wednesday, or any Order coming on before 2 o'clock, would be decided on at 5 o'clock—that was, after at least three hours' discussion. The House might carry the Previous Question, might adjourn the debate, might accept an Amendment, but would, somehow or other, settle the question. The Previous Question met the cases in which "talking out" was defended as a means of getting rid of a question not ripe for legislation; but talking out was the clumsiest possible method. The House must not think that the Resolution, would be often acted on. Its existence would take away the temptation to waste time. The debates would be real and business-like; the speeches would be brief and pointed; and although the Rule would be applicable to only the earliest Orders on the Paper, time would be left for useful discussion on the succeeding Orders. He could assure the House of the deep anxiety felt by their constituents on this question of the waste of the time of the House. The people were taking a deep interest in the proceedings of Parliament, and in the increasingly pressing social questions of the day; and he asked the House by adopting the Resolution to rescue itself from the impotence and incapacity from which it suffered. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving the Resolution which stood in his name.
§ MR. HASTINGS, in seconding the Resolution, said, that the function entrusted to the House by the people was to consider and decide on the legislative proposals submitted to it; but under existing arrangements this was often impossible. The process that went on from Wednesday to Wednesday was not to meet a Bill with fair arguments, but to go to such lengths of speech that it was impossible to come to a conclusion within a reasonable time. No proceedings more damaging to the reputation of the House could be adopted. The legislative Business of the House could only be dealt with in the future by a continuance of the practice of Morning Sittings; and if the habit of talking Bills out increased, the Business of the House would be greatly impeded. He could conceive no better mode of closing a debate than that of fixing a particular time. If the closing of a discussion was 660 to depend upon the vote of the majority, there would always be a feeling among the minority that they were badly used; but it would be impossible that that fooling should arise if the debate closed at a time fixed by the House. By taking this step they could apply a remedy to an. acknowledged evil, and at the same time would show the country they were in earnest in their resolve to further legislation. He begged to second the Resolution.
§
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That on Wednesdays, if the Debate on the first Order of the Day, or any Order that has been reached by Two o'clock (not being a proceeding in Committee, nor on the Consideration of a Bill as amended, nor on the Consideration of Lords Amendments) be continued until Five o'clock, Mr. Speaker shall put the Question then under discussion; and, if the Previous Question, or a Motion of Adjournment, or an Amendment to the Main Question shall have been moved, they shall be severally put, and afterwards the Main Question shall be put without further Debate."—(Mr. Stevenson.)
§ MR. WARTONsaid, that a great agitation was now on foot as to private Members' Bills; but he would remind the House that the first duty of Parliament was to attend to the Estimates, and all this cry about legislation arose from personal vanity on the part of Members and a desire to make themselves conspicuous. In the short time he had been a Member of the House he regretted to have seen that first duty of Parliament subordinated first to Government and then to private Members' legislation. Last year 19 of the Army Votes were taken on the last Saturday of the Session, and the Indian Budget was not taken till quite late; and he put it to private Members opposite whether they considered their own precious little Bills of more importance than the Army and Navy and the great Indian Empire? ["Question!"] That was the Question, and he contended that hon. Members who were under the impression that to push forward their own paltry little Bills was of more importance than such Business as he had mentioned were utterly mistaken as to their most elementary duties. Almost invariably on Wednesdays five or six Private Bills were on the Paper, and yet the interest taken in them was measured by the fact that Mr. Speaker had to wait for a time, varying from 20 to 50 minutes, before he could take the Chair. He did not 661 scruple to say that the Bills brought forward by private Members were usually utter trash. For instance, 14 or 15 county Bills had been brought in in regard to temperance. If the Members who brought them in cared twopence for the principle, they would coalesce in some practical measure. Then, again, the drafting of the Bills was disgraceful, and the grammar wretched; and that defect was even apparent in the terms of the Resolution submitted to the House by the hon. Member opposite—so much so that it was difficult to understand what on earth he meant. There was a spirit of tyranny abroad. The majority wanted to ram their opinions down the throats of the minority. The real truth was that Wednesday after Wednesday a succession of absurd measures were brought forward either from a motive of personal vanity or tyranny. It was the privilege of the majority, when a question came to the vote, to prevail; and it was the privilege of the minority, by every fair means provided by the Rules of the House, to defeat propositions which they did not approve. He objected to every kind of clôture as an infraction of the fair Rules of the Parliamentary game. The hon. Member assumed that a person rising late in the debate had no arguments to bring forward. But it often happened that a man who had listened to the whole debate and caught all its lights and shades would be able to make a very valuable contribution to the discussion. A really practical clôture would be the shortening of speeches. He had noticed that Liberal Members repeated the same arguments over and over, and that they could not speak without notes and water. But if a man could not speak without notes, it was plain that he knew very little about his subject. The most effectual way to shorten speeches would be to banish notes and water.
MR. GLADSTONEsaid, that this was not a Motion upon which the Government could press the House to take any particular course. The Mover of the Motion had done him the favour of communicating with him, and he had looked at the matter as impartially as he could. With respect to procedure in general, when proposals had been made for introducing particular Amendments, or what were believed to be Amendments, 662 he had adopted the conclusion that it was not expedient to open the question except as a whole, and with the opportunity of surveying the entire field. But, in arriving at that conclusion, he was governed by the consideration that the Government were supposed to have a special interest in the matter. There was, however, something peculiar in this case; because as the Motion was framed, as well as the Amendment of the hon. Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy), the Government had no interest in the subject. It was an isolated Motion, touching an isolated portion of the Business of the House—namely, the legislative work of private Members. Now, the great bulk of the work of private Members was not done on Bills, but on Motions and Amendments in Supply. He could not but admit, however, that the case of Wednesday legislation was a very pressing one. Whereas the Business of the Government was carried forward under enormous difficulties, and only a small portion of that which, perhaps, the country might desire was realized in each Session, independent Members had reached a stage in which nothing at all was done. Therefore, his hon. Friend was justified in raising the question. There was only one point about which he entertained a doubt, and that was making it a Standing Order. He thought it would be better to adopt it as an experiment during the rest of the Session. He did think, however, that his hon. Friend had made out his case—that the difficulties attending private legislation were now so severe and hostile as to require special treatment. He did not see anything objectionable in the mode of relief his hon. Friend proposed, which, while it would allow a reasonable time for the discussion of the Order of the Day, would have a considerable effect in preventing the talking out of Bills which had been fortunate enough to secure a favourable position on the Wednesday list. The first question was whether there was a case for doing anything, and to that he could not but answer that there was. The second question was whether it was right on the part of the Government to recommend the House to look favourably on private Members endeavouring to promote legislation apart from the general question in which the Government might have a special interest? To that ques- 663 tion he would answer that he thought it was right. The third question was whether the mode proposed by his hon. Friend was reasonable and moderate? His hon. Friend shut out certain stages from the operation of his proposal, such as proceedings in Committee and on Report, and Bills as amended coming from the Lords, the stopping of which at the hour named would not be reasonable; and he applied his remedy to stages where lengthened discussion and the opposition of a few might be so used with regard to Private Bills as to prevent their second reading being disposed of, or the Motion that the Speaker do leave the Chair, or the third reading. That also he considered reasonable. Therefore, as far as the general Motion of his hon. Friend was concerned, the Government concurred in it, and wished to allow it a fair trial. But with regard to the general question of procedure, the more the time drew near when he should have a less personal interest in the matter the more was he convinced that it would be necessary for the House to take effectual measures, not of a coercive kind—he believed that very little could be done by coercive means—for making its procedure more effective. His hon. Friend intended to except Government Bills. The first observation it occurred to him to make on that point was that Government Bills rarely appeared on the Order Book on Wednesday. To attempt to make Government Bills take priority on Wednesday would be so justly and universally resented that it could not be done. But towards the close of the Session the three or four last Wednesdays were generally placed at the disposal of the Government. That was at a time when it was felt to be for the general convenience, and when private Members were in despair of pushing on their Bills, and saw that nothing could be done by their individual and unaided exertions. If Wednesdays were to be given to the Government, it was better it should be done at the end of the Session, when the Prorogation was near, and when the passing of measures desired by the Government might, on the last Wednesday or two, be arrested by one or two Gentlemen watching the hand of the clock. He thought it better on the whole, then, that Government Bills should not be included in the Motion. He could not agree with the 664 hon. and learned Member for Bridport that no good was to be done by private Members attempting legislation. In former times a great deal had been done by private Members. But the difficulties which now fell so severely on the Government fell still more severely on private Members; and, therefore, the Government were inclined to look with a favourable and friendly eye upon any proposition like that of his hon. Friend, which appeared in itself well considered, moderate in its operation, founded on a real necessity, and which he believed his hon. Friend was ready to adopt as an experiment, so that if the House thought it did not work satisfactorily they might retrace their steps.
§ MR. ANDERSONsaid, he thought his Friend ought to be very much satisfied with the speech of the Prime Minister. They were glad that the right hon. Gentleman had assented to the proposal, and the only thing he did not quite like was the desire of the right hon. Gentleman to confine the Rule to the present Session. Private Members were placed under extreme difficulties, and if this proposal were only passed for the present it would lapse at the end; and his hon. Friend would, at the beginning of next Session, have to go through the whole process of balloting for Tuesday after Tuesday, and perhaps might never get an opportunity of bringing it forward again. For his part, he would like to see the Resolution made a Standing Order, or, if not, the Rule should at least last for one Session beyond the present, in order to give it a fair trial. The Prime Minister had not alluded to other Amendments on the Paper; but, perhaps, as he was about to move one, the right hon. Gentleman would offer some remarks upon it. He agreed with one remark that fell from the hon. and learned Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton), who said there ought to be some limit to the length of speeches. That was a matter he had advocated for the last dozen years in that House, and he believed that the House had arrived at the opinion of the necessity for it. But the hon. and learned Member for Bridport spoke of other things, for he alluded to the lateness of the hour at which they got a House on Wednesday. Considering the well-known efforts made by the hon. and learned Member to prevent his Friends getting into the 665 House on Wednesday at 12 o'clock, he wondered he was not ashamed to allude to the subject at all. Then the hon. and learned Member read them a lecture, and urged them to go in for Supply on all occasions; but he must point out to the hon. and learned Member that it was not the practice to discuss Supply on Wednesdays. The hon. and learned Member also said that all Private Bills were brought in from personal vanity. The hon. and learned Member occasionally brought in Private Bills himself; and therefore, when he said they were brought in out of personal vanity the hon. and learned Gentleman must be judging other people by himself. [Mr. WARTON: Quite so.] He (Mr. Anderson) denied that private Members' Bills were brought in from any such motive. He was surprised to hear the hon. and learned Member for Bridport oppose the proposal, because it would be a benefit to him in bringing in his Bill with regard to patent medicines; therefore the hon. and learned Member was standing in his own light. Undoubtedly, the great sin—perhaps the worst institution of the House—was that of talking out. There was talking out on Wednesday to reach a quarter to 6, again on Morning Sittings there was talking out to reach 10 minutes to 7, and on every night in the week but Wednesday to reach half-past 12. All this gave rise to a lot of useless talk, much of it not really meant for the subject under discussion, but for no other purpose than to prevent some subsequent Bill being proceeded with. Under these circumstances, he thought they ought to be obliged to his hon. Friend for attempting to deal with the matter, though he only touched one point, that of Wednesday; and if they got that they would have gained a very great step, and possibly some other day they might make a further step. He had an Amendment to move to the Resolution, but in no sense a hostile one, but really to complete the Resolution, His proposal was in substance passed through one of the most important Committees of the House that ever sat upon the question of the Business of the House—namely, the Committee of 1871. A Resolution identical with his, though not confined to Wednesday, was proposed by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board, and was carried 666 unanimously by that Committee. The object of the Amendment was to give facilities for the passing, not of unknown Bills, but of Bills which the House had already stamped with its approval by reading them a second time. It did not attempt to facilitate the position of second readings; on the contrary, it made it far more difficult to pass them through that stage, because after the 1st of June it gave preference to those Bills on which the House had stamped its approval. An hon. Member opposite proposed another Amendment to widen the scope of his Amendment, giving place to those that had passed through "another place." He did not think they need care what was done in another branch of the Legislature—his object was to facilitate the passing of the Bills of this House. He would like to tell the hon. Member how his Amendment would work if adopted in addition to the one he (Mr. Anderson) proposed. For instance, if he, at the commencement of a Session, was unsuccessful in the ballot in getting a good place for a second reading, he should withdraw the Bill and take it along the corridor, and ask some noble Lord to introduce it. If it passed the other House, he would put it down for the first Wednesday in June, when it would take precedence of all other Bills, even those that had been read a second time. Even in the month of May it might be possible to pass a Bill through the other House, and then obtain precedence for it in this House on the first Wednesday of June and on subsequent Wednesdays over all the Bills to which this House had already given much labour, if the Amendment of the hon. Member opposite were adopted. He did not believe the House would like that position of affairs; and he thought it was an abundant reason for rejecting the Amendment proposed by the hon. Member. There was no other point that he need notice; and he would therefore move to add to the Resolution of his hon. Friend the following:—
When several Bills (other than Government Bills) which have passed different stages have been appointed for the same Wednesday, on and after the 1st day of June they shall he arranged on the Paper in the following order:—1. Consideration of Lords' Amendments. 2. Third Readings. 3. Consideration of Bills as amended in Committee. 4. Bills in Committee. 5. Bills standing for Committee. 6. Second Readings.
§ MR. SPEAKERsuggested that it would be more convenient if the Resolution of the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Stevenson) were first disposed of, as that course would prevent complication; and if the Resolution were agreed to, the Amendment of the hon. Member for Glasgow (Mr. Anderson) could then be moved as an addition when the Amendment was put as a substantive Motion.
§ MR. BERESFORD HOPEsaid, he approached this question with an impartial mind, for he sometimes supported and sometimes opposed Wednesday Bills. He sympathized with the good intentions of the hon. Member; but he believed the matter was a graver one than might be assumed from the simple words of the Resolution. The framer of this Resolution had unconsciously invented a new form of talking out an important measure, by holding out to Members an inducement to keep up a discussion upon any trifling Bill which happened to precede it. It would also make the House of Commons more of a debating society on Wednesday afternoons than ever. Wednesday Bills were most generally only Bills in their form; but, in reality, only Resolutions cast into that shape to show what they looked like. They were germ Bills, which it might often be very desirable should be discussed, while it was exceedingly undesirable to force the House to a premature decision. It would often be equally undesirable to cut short a discussion which might be extremely useful and interesting in threshing out a question, and to invent a new and arbitrary clôture, which would not advance useful legislation, and would burden the Division Lists with a great deal more rubbish than they at present contained. He objected to any Member who had bestowed an essay on the House in support of any particular crotchet having the power, before the subject was fully discussed, of pressing the question to a Division, and thereby bringing about a sterile and ridiculous result. [Mr. COURTNEY interrupted, pointing out the alternative of the Previous Question.] He repudiated the suggestion. Nobody would be hoodwinked by a technicality like that, as a decision on the Previous Question would be taken as one on the matter itself. The Prime Minister had agreed to accept this proposal as 668 an experiment, which was to last for the present Session only; but he protested against making an experiment in fads. They had already quite enough of crude and premature action in that House, and he hoped there would be exhibited that night a sufficient amount of good sound common sense to secure the rejection of the hon. Member's insane proposal.
§ MR. EDWARD CLARKEsaid, that since the short speech, and the equally short visit, of the Prime Minister, this discussion had lost all interest. The right hon. Gentleman had said that the Mover of the Resolution had made out his case, although the right hon. Gentleman did not happen to have heard the hon. Member's speech. The right hon. Gentleman, however, had said that he would not consent to the Resolution being carried as a Standing Order, but merely assented to it being tried as an experiment for the rest of the present Session.
§ MR. COURTNEYsaid, he was anxious that there should be no mistake upon this point. It was true that the right hon. Gentleman had announced that he could only assent to this proposal on the understanding that it should endure for the present Session only; but, on reconsideration, he was willing that it should remain in force until the end of next Session.
§ MR. EDWARD CLARKEsaid, that that was the most extraordinary statement that he had ever heard from the Government Benches. The House was asked to accept an assurance on behalf of the Prime Minister directly contrary to the words that had been used a short time ago by the right hon. Gentleman himself. The Resolution would only apply to seven Wednesdays during the remainder of the Session. He did not admire the practice of talking out Bills. It not only interfered with the Business of the House, but it was often a great tactical mistake. It was not only those who were opposed to the Bill who were anxious to have it talked out. Certainly, the course of Parliamentary proceedings would be more straightforward if they always took a Division instead of talking out a Bill. But this did not dispose of the question, for this Motion would place an arbitrary limit on the length of a debate; and he believed that of all methods of shortening debates 669 the arbitrary limitation of the length of a debate was the clumsiest and worst. They could not say who should occupy the three or four hours that were to be allowed; and it might be that the supporters of the measure might occupy it all to themselves, and when the Bill was rejected or carried there would have been no statement of the arguments against it. A short time ago a Minister of the Crown occupied three hours and three-quarters in one speech. In the same way, it would be in the power of the Mover and Seconder to occupy all the time until 5 o'clock, and then insist on a Division being taken. The Secretary to the Treasury said the Previous Question might be moved. No doubt it could. But those who voted for the Previous Question thereby ranged themselves as opponents of the Bill. This proposal was evidently directed against the full and free discussion, and absolute threshing out, of Bills connected with the sale of intoxicating liquors on Sundays, which were frequently presented to the Notice of the House on Wednesdays. He himself had more than once proposed that Bills should be carried on from one Session to the other; but the course now suggested would result in the selection by accident of a few measures which should inevitably receive the decision of the House. The proposal before the House meant the selection in a most ridiculous way of what might be the very worst measures before the House, and which would have this exceptional advantage. True, the proposal, as it had been limited by the Prime Minister, was a very trivial matter; but, trivial as it was, he believed it would be a mischievous example, and he would therefore vote against it.
§ LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLsaid, he had been amused at the speech of the hon. and learned Member, for he had hitherto been so much in favour of rapid legislation that he had brought forward a proposal that Bills should be carried over from one Session to another. The hon. and learned Member, however, was so enamoured of his own proposal that he looked with jealousy on any rival proposal for securing the same object, and which he (Lord Randolph Churchill) ventured to say secured that object in a much better way than the proposal of the hon. and learned Member for Ply- 670 mouth. The proposal before the House was undoubtedly intended to enable the House to come to a decision on Bills submitted by private Members, and from his experience of the House he was not in the least opposed to the proposal. He thought that if some Resolution of this kind were not adopted they would run the risk of having all the time of private Members monopolized by the Government. Bills were brought forward on Wednesdays which were of great interest, not from a Party point of view, but socially and nationally; and a small clique in the interests of small classes were enabled, by one manoeuvre or another, to prevent the House coming to a decision, and the day was completely and entirely wasted. He was very much disposed to doubt the utility of a debate which did not wind up with a Division. This was not a bad opportunity to allude to the proceedings which marked Wednesdays in the Commons. He had seen Mr. Speaker sitting in the Chair at the Table for three-quarters of an hour, while Members refused to come in and make a House. He had also seen the most extraordinary artifices used by Members in the Lobby to dissuade Members from coming in. The time had come when antics and manœuvres of that kind should be put a stop to, for they were a disgrace to the House. Another reason why he thought the House should consider the Resolution with favour was, that in spite of the alterations which the Government had made in the procedure of the House, the time and rights of private Members were getting more and more limited. Another reason was that private Members always seemed to think it necessary to occupy an hour of the time of the House, though that night appeared to have been a remarkable exception. He had no doubt that if a Member knew that the House was to come to a decision at 5 o'clock he would recollect that other Members had something to say, and would endeavour to compress his remarks. He had one fault to find with the words of the Motion — "When a debate has been continued until 5 o'clock." He did not see the use of putting in that particular hour, because it was quite clear that if a Division were taken, at 5 o'clock, the Division taking something like a quarter of an hour, no time whatever would be left for 671 other Business, except practically unopposed Business. It seemed to him that it would be better to make the hour 5.45 instead of 5. This would, perhaps, lead to large reforms in the hours of the House, and it would be much better if they could come to some agreement that the House should rise at a certain hour; but that before doing so, where the opinion of the House was strongly in favour of coming to a decision, it should not be put in the power of a private Member to prevent the House so coming to a decision. That, he believed, would be a most beneficial reform. He looked forward to the time when the House would perceive the folly of the proceedings which regulated the time at which it met now, and to which it sat, and that it would adopt a more rational proceeding, when it would be the rule for the House to meet regularly at 2 o'clock and rise at a definite hour. He would be glad to see the House adopt the Resolution, because it would show that they were not bound by an iron band to those proceedings which had been in force for a long time past; but that the Business of the House would be carried out in a manner which would render them less liable to the criticism and ridicule of the public. On those grounds he was in favour of the proposal of the hon. Member, and was very glad to hear that it met with the approval of the Government.
§ MR. W. FOWLERsaid, he would certainly vote in favour of the Resolution. Any hon. Member who now brought forward a Bill on a Wednesday was next door to an idiot, as it was absolutely ridiculous now for a Member to take the trouble to bring in a Bill. As to the proposal of the noble Lord, he would suggest that when a quarter to 6 came they should have the Division, whether on the Main or on the Previous Question, and should go on dividing until the matter was exhausted. This would avoid the waste of time involved in dividing at 5 o'clock. He agreed with the remark of the noble Lord that the present conduct of Business in the House on Wednesdays made them ridiculous. They were constantly having long discussions without arriving at any decisions, and then the House rose with great regret that, through the freak of some hon. Member, no decision could be come to. He thought this abuse of the 672 forms of the House should be stopped without delay.
MR. A. F. EGERTONsaid, he thought the difficulty as to the delay in making a House on Wednesdays could be got over easily by providing that the House should be made by Commission. When a House was made by Commission, the Speaker in the Chair, and even one or two Members, constituted "a House." If that were agreed to there was not the slightest doubt that Members interested in a Bill would come down and form a respectable audience. As to the Motion before the House, he should feel it to be his duty to record his vote against it. He regarded it as the most odious form of the clôture. It would oblige the House to divide on a Bill and come to a decision upon it whether it desired to do so or not, whilst other Bills of far greater importance were left unconsidered. He could not approve of such a childish idea.
§ SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTsaid, he strongly deprecated any such alteration in the Rules of the House on the mere Motion of a private Member. He agreed that the Resolution was the clôture in its most objectionable form; it was, in fact, regularly gagging the House of Commons, and he protested against it. If they were to have this clôture on Wednesdays, why not on Tuesdays and Fridays? ["Hear, hear!"] He regretted to hear his right hon. Friend the Member for North Devon cheer. He thought he was too old a bird to be caught in this way; but apparently he was prepared to follow the Prime Minister, whether the proposal was in the interests of the country or not. It was, no doubt, very easy for hon. Gentlemen opposite, who did not care what happened—["Oh, oh!"]—to support this proposal. ["Oh!"] Well, he was sorry to say he had come to the conclusion that many Gentlemen sacrificed their opinions for their Party instead of looking after the best interests of the country, and it had even been stated that they voted black was white in the interest of the Government. He passed this by however, and entered his earnest protest against the Resolution.
§ MR. CHAPLINsaid, that he was sorry he could not agree with the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill) upon this subject. As to the statement of the hon. Member 673 for Cambridge (Mr. W. Fowler) that they scarcely ever came to a decision on Wednesdays, he recollected in the last three Parliaments the House coming to many important decisions on Wednesdays. It was by no means a trifling alteration in the procedure of the House that was proposed by this Resolution, for it meant that after four hours' discussion, no matter how important the subject, the House must on a Wednesday come to a decision upon it, whether it was adequately discussed or not. As he understood the Resolution, they were to have on Wednesdays a 6 o'clock clôture and at Morning Sittings for Government Business a 7 o'clock clôture. What was the general character of the questions which were very often raised by private Members on Wednesdays? He had heard it stated over and over again in the House that private Members were almost invariably the pioneers of the most important questions which came up for discussion. The difficulties of private Members in carrying Bills to a conclusion in that House were exceedingly great. Everybody knew that the main object which they had in view in introducing Bills was to obtain full and ample discussion upon the question with which the House dealt, and to educate the people in the country who were interested in those questions. There was hardly a private Member who was sanguine enough to suppose that by introducing a Bill which was seriously opposed he would be able to carry it into law in one Session. But although he knew he had no chance of carrying his Bill in one Session, he was perfectly aware of the fact that a full discussion upon it on a Wednesday afternoon would enable him or some other Member on a future day to pass the Bill into law. The Resolution now before the House, however, would destroy the opportunities which Members now had of passing Bills. If the principle of the Resolution held good and was worth anything at all, it could not possibly be limited to Wednesdays. If it was good for anything it ought to be applied to all their proceedings. He protested against distinctions being made between the rights of private Members and the rights of Members of the Government. Nothing could be more unconstitutional than such distinctions. As long as he was a Member of the House of Commons 674 he should do his best to uphold the privileges of private Members. It was because he saw that propositions of this nature would injuriously affect the independence of private Members that he should oppose the Resolution, which he believed was framed on inadequate and insufficient grounds.
§ MR. COURTNEYsaid, he had always been jealous of alterations of this kind; but he had said on more than one occasion that with different manners they were compelled to adopt different laws. Things were not now as they used to be. After a long discussion on a Wednesday afternoon, instead of taking a Division as a matter of course, a Member got up at a quarter to 6 o'clock to speak, and the consequence was the question of necessity stood adjourned. Several hon. Members seemed to think that the Resolution, if passed, would compel the House to come to a decision on any subject before a full and ample discussion had taken place upon it. The power of withholding a decision upon the Main Question was amply reserved. This proposal did not compel a Division to be taken on the Main Question if the House of Commons was averse from pronouncing an opinion upon it. It was competent for any hon. Member to move the Previous Question or the Adjournment of the Debate; and if it was thought that the question had not been sufficiently discussed, the House would carry the Motion for the Adjournment of the Debate. On the other hand, if the question was one which, in the opinion of the House, was not ripe for decision on account of its novelty or any other cause, and if the House thought that no opinion could be pronounced upon it, then the perfectly fair and legitimate Parliamentary way of meeting the question was to move the Previous Question, which, no doubt, would be supported. He might cite, as an instance in point, the Bill of the hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. Broadhurst) dealing with leases. That was a Bill which raised questions of great novelty and importance; and he thought he did not misconstrue the opinions entertained by a large number of Members, that a Bill proposing a remedy for the evils of leasehold tenure was not one to be considered and dealt with off-hand. The whole point really was as to whether on Wednesday afternoons, on a question 675 which involved important considerations submitted to the House, and which had been discussed for at least three hours, they were taking a rash step in saying that at the end of three hours the opinion of the House should be taken as to the Question of Adjournment, or whether a decision should be taken on the Main Question. He thought the experiment was one of an extremely moderate character. The noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill) asked why 5 o'clock was proposed as the hour when the decision was to betaken, and not a later hour? Although something might be said in favour of that view, he pointed out that it might be necessary to take three Divisions in a full House before the Main Question was decided upon; and in that case, by adopting 5.45 as the hour, it would stultify the object which the hon. Member for Shields (Mr. Stevenson) had in view in proposing this Motion for the adoption of the House. In reference to the remarks of the Prime Minister, that he objected to this proposal being made a Standing Order of the House, and suggesting that it should be tried as an experiment for this Session only, the hon. and learned Member for Plymouth (Mr. E. Clarke) had pointed out, with his usual acuteness, that the Government would get the benefit of the Motion during the remainder of the present Session. On reflection, however, the Government had suggested that the Order should be made to run to the end of next Session.
§ SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEI observe that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy) has on the Paper an Amendment to exclude the case of Government Bills; but I do not know whether it will be moved, inasmuch as it would make a serious difference in the Resolution before the House. The time is not far distant when the Government will ask for Wednesdays for their own purposes; and if they have this Rule as a Standing Order, it will operate very much in favour of their Business. They will always make sure of having Divisions upon their own matters after a very limited debate. The hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury has said that, after all, there need be no fear that injustice will be done, or that debates will be unfairly curtailed. That may be so; but I can- 676 not help thinking that the hon. Gentleman speaks from the side of the majority, and that we are answering from the side of the minority; and there is all the difference on a question of this kind between speaking on the side of the majority and speaking on the side of the minority that there is between the man who holds the cart-whip and the man who receives the lash at the other end. It may be true that if the majority are not satisfied that the matter has been fully discussed, they may think it fair that an opportunity should be given for the further consideration of it. That may be so; but it may often happen, on the other hand, that the majority are determined to overbear the minority, and the minority would under this Resolution in that case be shut out from the opportunity of making a full statement of the case they wish to submit. There is great force in what was said by the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin) just now. He pointed out that these Private Bills that are brought forward on Wednesdays are, to a great extent, pioneers of other legislation; and, no doubt, a great many questions are raised in Bills brought forward by private Members which tend more to raise such discussions than bring the legislation to bear upon the questions with which they deal. It would be frequently a very great misfortune if the discussions raised on those Bills of private Members were limited to three hours, and no opportunity were given for their full examination. They are not brought forward on the responsibility of the Government, and after full examination by Her Majesty's Ministers. They are very often in the nature of tentative measures. Very often they are brought forward with insufficient preparation, only for the purpose of discussion, and the discussions that take place are very valuable as preparing the way for further discussion; but if you have this provision, you will constantly find matters arising which should be discussed for more than three hours, but which will have to be concluded at the end of the period. We must take the matter at its maximum. If the discussion begins at 2 o'clock it must close at 5; and at the latter hour, not only is the Question of Adjournment or the Previous Question to be put, but, when that is disposed of, the Main Question is 677 to be put without debate. That is a very strong proceeding, and one which the House will feel to be of very doubtful policy even in respect of private Members' Bills. But we cannot forget that if we once admit this principle, and say that after a certain number of hours' debate there is to be an absolute clôture in regard to Bills of private Members, we shall very soon have the same proposal made with regard to other Business; and I really do not see upon what principle then you will be able to refuse it. If you admit it in the case of Wednesdays, I do not see how you are to refuse it in the case of Thursdays, or any other day. Therefore, if the time is limited—which is a very serious question—in the one case, so also will it be in the other case. I quite agree with my noble Friend (Lord Randolph Churchill) that there is a great deal of waste of time on Wednesdays, and I think it would be possible to curtail the time that is so wasted; but I think the suggestion of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Wigan (Mr. A. Egerton) went in that direction, and very properly. He suggested that there should be some Rule adopted by which the opening of Business on Wednesdays should take place without waiting an indefinite time till a quorum is obtained—that we should begin Business just as we do when a Royal Commission is announced. If such a Rule were adopted, I have no doubt it would save a great deal of time at the beginning of the Sitting. I must say that I look with very considerable alarm at this introduction of the principle of absolute closure, and I am bound to say that it is a very formidable proposal when we are told that this should be made a Standing Order. If this is done it should only be as an experiment.
§ MR. COURTNEYI think the right hon. Baronet has misunderstood me. What I said was, that the Rule should not be a Standing Order, but should be in force until the end of next Session.
§ SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEThat, of course, would make the arrangement less objectionable than I understood; but in any case I think we should be setting a dangerous precedent, and one which ought not to be set without grave consideration. I really very much doubt whether, by the adoption of this Rule, we shall not be doing evil instead of good, and throwing back 678 the whole question of the arrangement of our debates.
§ MR. PULESTONsaid, it seemed to him that they all concurred in this, that a good deal of difficulty arose out of the waste of time which took place on Wednesdays. There was also a waste of time on other days; and it had been argued that if this Rule were adopted for Wednesdays it certainly ought also to be adopted for Morning Sittings. There was no answering the argument, that they sat here frequently from 4 to 4.30 doing nothing on ordinary days, and that in this and many other ways valuable time was wasted; and he himself had ventured to make a proposal to the House, when they had an Autumn Session to discuss their Rules, to the effect that they should have no questions whatever on Government nights, except such as the Speaker might declare to be urgent, giving the whole of the two Government nights to the Government, and in that way to release the other days to the use of private Members. If a simple Rule like that were adopted it would relegate Wednesdays to its proper place, and it would be thoroughly understood that hon. Members would then have this time afforded them for the ventilation of grievances, and for the passing of private measures of great importance. The hon. Member the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Courtney) had rather surprised him when he said that if, when the proposed Rule came into operation on the Wednesday, they had not had sufficient discussion, all they would have to do would be to move the Previous Question or the Adjournment of the Debate. Every Member of the House knew perfectly well that, however honest might be his desire to support the measure before the House, under such circumstances, if things went on as at present, such a proposal as that of moving the adjournment of the debate would be certain to be ascribed to a wish to oppose or obstruct the passing of the Bill. He felt very much disposed, then, to give effect to what the hon. Member suggested by now moving the adjournment of the debate. After a long and exhaustive series of debates they passed the clôture in an Autumn Session. But it had never since been heard of. Neither he nor anybody else had heard of it. Surely it would be better that this should 679 be put in force by the Speaker, than that they should be called on to come there and pass by a sort of snap judgment a clôture of a very intensified form. He felt convinced that that could hardly be the intention of hon. Members on the other side of the House, notwithstanding the remarks of the Prime Minister. He was disposed to give an opportunity to the House to think a little more on the question; and, therefore, he would move the adjournment of the debate.
§ Motion made, and Question put, "That the Debate be now adjourned." —(Mr. Puleston.)
§ The House divided:—Ayes 115; Noes 92: Majority 23. — (Div. List, No. 122.)
§ Debate adjourned till To-morrow.