PARLIAMENT—BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE. (Hansard, 26 January 1886)

HC Deb 26 January 1886 vol 302 cc431-42 431

§ THE CHANCELLOE OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH)
I beg, Sir, to propose the Motion of which I have given Notice— That the Order of the Day for resuming the Adjourned Debate on the Address, in Answer to Her Majesty's Most Gracious Speech, have precedence, this day, over the Notices of Motions. In doing so I should wish to explain in a very few words the position which I thought it proper to take up with reference to to-morrow. I had understood that there was a very strong feeling on both sides of the House in favour of an early discussion, and, if possible, a decision on the important question dealt with by the Bill of the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Woodall). Well, Sir, for that reason, when the hon. Member appealed to me not to propose the resumption of the debate on the Address to-morrow, in order that his Bill might be discussed, and bearing in mind my own intention to propose the postponement of the debate on the Address on Thursday, it seemed to me that the request of the hon. Member was one to which I might properly accede. We have no wish whatever to 432 accede to that request unless it is the desire of the House that we should do so. But if it is the desire of the House that the hon. Member's Bill shall be postponed to an indefinite day, and that the debate on the Address should occupy to-morrow, without, so far as I can see, a chance of arriving at a conclusion, Her Majesty's Government will agree to that.

§ Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Order of the Day for resuming the Adjourned Debate on the Address, in Answer to Her Majesty's Most Gracious Speech, have precedence, this day, over the Notices of Motions."—(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)

MR. GLADSTONE
Then, Sir, do I understand that if the right hon. Gentleman understands it to be the desire of the House—and certainly, so far as I am able to gather it, I think it is the general desire of the House—that this Private Bill, however important, should not interfere with the debate on the Address, and if this Motion is agreed to tonight, in that case the right hon. Gentleman will likewise consent to give Notice of a similar Motion to-morrow?

§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER
I will make inquiries in the course of the evening.

§ MR. DILLON
said, that before this Motion was put he would like to make a few observations upon what seemed to him the extraordinary course which had been pursued by the Government. He thought that this Motion should not be allowed to pass by the Members of that House, more especially by the Members who represented the Irish people, without taking the present opportunity, the only one they would have, of entering their protest against the extraordinary course which was being adopted by the Government. The Government did not state their intention when they were laying the Most Gracious Speech of Her Majesty before the House, although they had had ample opportunities previously of finding out all that they desired as regarded Ireland. If they had not then arrived at the conclusion that the affairs of Ireland had reached that condition that immediate action on their part was required, he would ask hon. Members what could have occurred within the past three or four days which had induced the Government to perform this extraordinary 433 somersault? They were told that if on the receipt of information which they were led to suppose was awaited from Ireland——

§ MR. SPEAKER
Order, order! I must point out to the hon. Member that he would not be in Order in discussing the Irish Question on the Motion for the postponing for this day of the Notices of Motion.

§ MR. DILLON
said, he would not, then, continue that line of argument; but he had supposed that there was some connection between the two matters. Of course, he bowed to the decision of the Speaker, and he would confine himself to the observations he had to offer upon the question whether the Orders of the Day should be postponed for the purpose of making way for the debate on the Address. The point to which he wished to address himself was this—that Tuesday also was a private Member's night. Either the subjects raised in the Queen's Speech from the Throne were of such importance as to justify the House in postponing the Business of private Members, so as to enable the consideration of the Speech to be proceeded with from day to day, or else they were not of sufficient importance. The House had been led to believe, until that evening, that the Speech would be proceeded with from day to day; and what he wanted to know was this—what reason had the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer given to induce the House to consent to the postponement of the Orders of the Day that evening, which would not apply equally well on tomorrow, and equally well on Thursday? He thought the House were entitled, before they agreed to the Motion, to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to state the reasons why they should agree to it. One now fact had certainly come under the notice of the House, and it was that the Government did not consider the questions raised in the Queen's Speech to be of sufficient importance to justify the House in proceeding with the discussion of them from day to day, until they could arrive at a conclusion upon them. He should like to have some little information as to the Forms of the House. He was not much versed with them, having been for a long time absent from the House, and having been frequently interrupted, when he was a 434 Member, when he attempted to take part in the deliberations of the House. The argument he had been endeavouring to bring out when he was called to Order by the Speaker was this—that the statement, now for the first time placed before the House, that the debate was to be interrupted, and for all they knew interrupted for a week, a fortnight, or it was exceedingly likely to be even longer, if the Bill announced to be brought forward on Thursday was persisted with, was of so startling a nature that the debate, if postponed at all, would have to be postponed for a very long time. Indeed, if the debate the Government proposed to continue that evening were of so little importance, he failed to see why it should be allowed to interfere at all with the privileges of private Members, whose opportunities were certainly not very enormous.

§ THE SECRETAEY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Lord RANDOLPH CHURCHILL)
I think, Sir, I can answer the Questions of the hon. Member in a manner which will satisfy him. The course which the Government propose to adopt to-night is, I imagine, in strict accordance with the course adopted on all former occasions when the debate on the Address has not been concluded within the first week in which the House met. In recent years the debate has been generally of a prolonged nature; and the right hon. Gentleman opposite(Mr. Gladstone) will, I think, bear me out when I say that on several occasions, when the debate on the Address was not concluded before the first private Members' night, a Motion of this kind was always made in order to enable the House to deal with the debate on the Address before proceeding to other Business. Therefore, there is nothing extraordinary in the course which the Government have adopted. Also the hon. Member will perceive, if lie looks at the Notice Paper, that there is no Motion of any private Member of any very great importance—certainly no Motion of any importance compared with the Motion which the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Jesse Collings) is going to submit to the House. The House will perceive that there is additional reason why the Government should make the Motion they have made to-night. There is no reason. I know of to come to the conclusion that the debate on the Address may not con- 435 clude before Thursday; and on Thursday my right hon. Friend has stated that he will make a Motion, if the debate on the Address is not concluded, to bring another subject before the notice of the House—a subject which lie considers of the highest and most important character; a subject to which further debate on the Address must necessarily give way. Those are the reasons which the Government have for making this Motion; and I think the right hon. Gentleman opposite and others will be inclined to agree that there is nothing extraordinary or abnormal in the Motion, and nothing at Variance with the regular and established practice of Parliament.

§ MR. PARNELL
I apprehend, Sir, that the conduct of the Government, in making the Motion now under discussion, is not found fault with, except on the ground of the incompleteness of the Motion itself. It appears to me that it would be well for the House to decide, on the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether the debate on the Address should be interrupted in the extraordinary and unprecedented way suggested by the right hon. Gentleman. Prom the hasty examination I have been able to make, it certainly seems to me that the debate on the Address has scarcely ever, if ever, been interrupted as the right hon. Gentleman suggests that it should be interrupted on this occasion.

§ MR. SPEAKER
I must point out to the hon. Member that the Question is not one of the interruption of the debate on the Address, but the continuation of the debate on the Address. It is the ordinary Motion which is made when it is considered desirable to postpone the Motion standing in the names of private Members, so as to allow the debate on the Address to be proceeded with.

§ MR. PARNELL
"With the view of putting myself in Order, I shall move an Amendment to the Motion. I propose to leave out all the words in the Motion after the word "precedence," in order to insert— On all days on which it is set down over Notices of Motions and Orders of the Day, so that the Motion will then read— That the Order of the Day for resuming the Adjourned Debate on the Address, in Answer to Her Majesty's Most Gracious Speech, have 436 precedence on all days on which it is set down over the Notices of Motions and Orders of the Day. I wish, Sir, in other words, to ask the House to deal with this question as a whole, and to settle it now, so that our Business may not be interrupted tomorrow by a Motion to give precedence to the Address over the Bill of the hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. Woodall), and so that it may not be interrupted again on Thursday, as promised by the Government, by a Motion with regard to precedence for coercive measures against Ireland. I think, Sir, we are in a position to deal with this question now, and to decide whether we shall adhere to existing precedents, which I believe are all on one side; or whether we shall declare that the debate on the Address shall be a continuous proceeding, as it has always been up to the present date, and shall not be interrupted each day by questions of the relative importance of this, or that, or the other Bill. I wish to direct attention to the fact that, in all human probability, if the course which the Government has foreshadowed, and if my important Amendment be not agreed to, the discussion on the Amendment of the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Jesse Collings) cannot be concluded to-night, and that instead of resuming the discussion on that Amendment to-morrow you will turn aside to the discussion of a Bill on the undoubtedly important question of female franchise, and that instead of resuming the debate on Thursday you will turn aside to the other question of the coercion of Ireland. I would ask English agricultural Members, returned by the counties of England, whether they think they will be carrying out the wishes of their constituents, if they allow the Government to turn them away from the discussion of the very important subject of the agricultural situation in England, and the rights of the agricultural labourers on the Land Question? The motive and desire of the Government appears to be self-evident. Their stratagems are various. An Amendment was placed on the Paper late last night, just before the adjournment of the House—I have no doubt as the result of hurried consultation and communications between the front Treasury Bench and their followers—an Amendment to insert after the word "Agriculture," in the 11th 437 paragraph of the Speech, the following words:— And humbly to represent to Her Majesty the injury which Trade and Agriculture both in this Country and the Colonies are suffering in consequence of the system of Bounties granted by foreign Powers. The Government desired to put forward for discussion any question rather than the question of the interests of the labourers in the English counties; and when, Sir, as I understand, by the ruling of Mr. Speaker, the hon. Member, who gave Notice of the Amendment I have quoted, was unable to cut out the precedence obtained by the hon. Member for Ipswich, the front Treasury Bench resort to another stratagem. They give Notice that on Thursday they will interrupt the debate on the Address in order to get on to the question of Irish Coercion; and then, following the lead which was unwittingly given them by the hon. Member for Stoke on Women Suffrage, they eagerly jump at that question also, with a view to getting rid of another day, so as to render it more like by that the discussion on the Amendment of the hon. Member for Ipswich may be futile, vain, and of no issue whatever. I think it must be evident to the House that if we are to proceed in order and with due reverence to the Throne, we must go on with the debate on the reply to the Speech from the Throne until it has been concluded. The device of the Government must be patent to everybody—namely, to drag in any question they can for the purpose of evading debate on the Amendment of the hon. Member for Ipswich, just as the drowning man clutches at a straw. The discussion upon the Address has not been carried on at any excessive length up to the present time, and the Amendments have not been pressed with undue pertinacity. I recollect occasions when Amendments to the Address occupied a fortnight in debate and, as yet, two nights only have been taken up this Session. There is, therefore, no ground, from any point of view, for the claim of the Government to interrupt the proceedings in connection with the Address in order to proceed to the question of Irish Coercion, and to get rid of the agricultural question which was raised by the hon. Member for Ipswich. The only way in which the House can prevent the loss of time and energy will 438 be by agreeing to some such Amendment as I now propose.

MR. T. M. HEALY
seconded the Amendment.

§ Amendment proposed, To leave out all the words after the word "precedence" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words, "on all days on which it is set down over Notices of Motions and Orders of the Day."—(Mr. Parnell.)

§ Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT
said, there seemed to be no doubt that the House was placed in a somewhat difficult position by the announcement which the Government had made. Everyone would agree that, whatever the causes that might load to the necessity, it was a very inconvenient process, to say the least of it, that the Address to the Crown should be postponed to an indefinite period. But he wished to suggest to the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) that he might confine the purport of his Amendment to that day and to-morrow. If that course were followed, the House would have time to ascertain how matters stood. The noble Lord the Secretary of State for India (Lord Randolph Churchill) had suggested that the debate on the Address might be concluded to-day or to-morrow. He was glad to hear that suggestion; because every Government was bound to do everything in its power to hasten the conclusion of a debate upon an Address proposed by itself. The House had disposed the previous evening of two Amendments to the Address; and he saw no reason why the Amendment of the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Jesse Collings) should not be disposed of that night. The other Amendments might then be disposed of to-morrow; and thus, the discussion arising out of the Address having been concluded, there would be no necessity for interrupting the debate. But the whole matter was hypothetical, and could not be determined until they should see what progress was made with the various Amendments set down for that and the following evening. If the hon. Member for the City of Cork should think fit to modify his Amendment so as to limit its effect to Tuesday and Wednesday, the House would probably find a convenient way out of the difficulties which had arisen.

439

§ MR. FINCH-HATTON
observed that, as one of the English Members referred to by the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell), he was anxious to lose no time in taking up the challenge. The hon. Member for the City of Cork had threatened English county Members with the displeasure of their constituents if they did anything to postpone the discussion of the interesting question about to be raised by the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Jesse Collings). Probably his (Mr. Finch-Hatton's) was about the worst case which the hon. Member for the City of Cork could have cited; because his was a purely agricultural constituency, which took the greatest possible interest in the question to be brought forward by the hon. Member for Ipswich. He (Mr. Finch-Hatton) had himself laid on the Table a Bill similar to that of the hon. Member for Ipswich. He begged to tell the hon. Member that his constituents, interested as they were, would wish that it and every other subject should be postponed in favour of the consideration of an important question affecting the integrity of the Empire. His constituents would approve the precedence of any measure which the responsible Advisers of the Crown might hold to be necessary for the re-assertion of the supremacy of the law in Ireland.

§ MR. WOODALL
said, he would be very sorry to press the Motion; but it certainly did appear to be extremely inconvenient for the House to tie its hands with regard to what might be its possible action on Thursday next. He thought that when the proposal was made tonight that the debate be adjourned, the sense of the House should be taken as to whether it should be adjourned over to-morrow, or until to-morrow.

§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER
I very much agree with what has fallen from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Sir William Harcourt); and after the speech of the hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. Woodall), of course I have no hesitation in saying that it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to proceed with the debate on the Address to-morrow. Therefore, the matter could be simplified by the amendment of the Motion as proposed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby, to which the Government would be willing to accede. But, in my 440 own defence, I may say that I have simply followed invariable precedent in giving Notice of Motion as applicable to a single day. The hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) made a suggestion which I must most earnestly repudiate. He seemed to suggest—and the remark was received with cheers by hon. Members in that quarter of the House—that we were endeavouring in this way to get rid of the agricultural question, which the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Jesse Collings) wishes to raise on the Address. I never heard a more baseless assertion made in this House. We have placed this Motion on the Paper in order that the hon. Member for Ipswich might have an opportunity of bringing forward his Amendment this evening; and the hon. Member who, so far as I know, is chiefly instrumental in postponing the Motion of the hon. Member for Ipswich is the hon. Member for the City of Cork himself. We are extremely desirous that the House should get to the discussion of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Ipswich. I had supposed, when I made a conditional promise to the hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. Woodall), that it would be perfectly possible that that discussion could be closed by a division to-night; but, if that be not possible, it might be resumed and concluded tomorrow. We in no way shirk the issue to be raised by the hon. Member for Ipswich. But with regard to the additional proposal of the hon. Member for the City of Cork, that we should tie the hands of the House and the Government with reference to all days until the debate on the Address should be concluded, I must most earnestly entreat the House not in any way to sanction such a Motion as that. What it means is simply the delay of the proposal which we feel it our duty to make to the House on Thursday. I dare say that several hon. Members may think that we have been some time in making up our minds before presenting this proposal to the House. I am not ashamed to say that we have been very reluctantly forced to the conviction that such a proposal is necessary. But, having arrived at that conviction, it is a necessary corollary that the proposal should be placed before the House without delay, and that the House should be asked by the Government to press it forward with the utmost expedition which may be possible.

441

MR. GLADSTONE
Everyone must, I think, subscribe to what has been stated by the right hon. Gentleman opposite with regard to the Motion of which he has given Notice to-day. That Motion is in perfect form and regularity, and when we are prepared I presume we may assent to it without any difficulty or objection. But the right hon. Gentleman will see that he has given a Notice to-day which raises a new question of very great importance with regard to the order of Business of the House—namely, whether it is desirable, either with a view to the observance of the usual practice of this House, or with a view to the ultimate despatch and expedition of any measure, that the Government should interpose Business of great importance in the middle of the discussion of its own Address? We have had a great deal of experience in former years in the discussion of such questions. But what I wish to put to the right hon. Gentleman opposite and the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) is, that that is a question of very great importance, upon which it is extremely difficult to give a conclusive judgment at a moment's notice. I should certainly wish myself to have the opportunity of referring to former cases—even cases of Irish legislation, which, in my opinion, are nearly analogous, and which would afford us light upon the subject. What I wish to point out is that the suggestion of my right hon. Friend near me (Sir William Harcourt) prejudices no one. It determines the course of Business to-day and tomorrow, and leaves us in a condition to inquire between this time and tomorrow what may be the bearings of the very important question raised by the Notice given on behalf of the Government to-night. I certainly would suggest—and I hope it may be done with the general consent of the House, if the hon. Member for the City of Cork assents—that the form recommended by my right hon. Friend near me should be adopted; because by tomorrow we should be in a position to select in our minds and adopt some definite course with regard to that proposal.

§ MR. JESSE COLLINGS
said, he thought that there would be no difficulty upon his own side of the House in bringing the discussion upon his 442 Amendment to a close that night. He was glad to see that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer was disposed to do his best upon his side to bring it to an early conclusion. With regard to the statement of the hon. Member for the Spalding Division of Lincolnshire (Mr. Finch-Hatton), he ventured to say, from his knowledge of constituencies, including the hon. Gentleman's own, that oven that formula—which they expected, but not quite so soon—about the integrity of the Empire would stand the Government in little stead if the interests of the labourers were put aside by a side wind.

§ MR. PARNELL
said, that he was very willing to adopt the suggestion made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. Gladstone), provided it were distinctly understood that the Government would allow the judgment of the House to be taken on the Motion of the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Jesse Collings) either that night or to-morrow.

§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

§ Amendment proposed, at the end of the Question, to add the words, "and To-morrow over other Orders of the Day and the Notices of Motions."—(Sir William Harcourt.)

§ Question, "That those words be there added," put, and agreed to.

§ Main Question, as amended, put. Ordered, That the Order of the Day for resuming the Adjourned Debate on the Address, in answer to Her Majesty's Most Gracious Speech, have precedence, this day over the Notices of Motions, and To-morrow over other Orders of the Day and the Notices of Motions.—(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)