HC Deb 03 June 1886 vol 306 cc967-72

Bill considered in Committee.

(In the Committee.)

Clause 1 (Short title and extent of Act).

MR. MARK STEWART (Kirkcudbright)

I think I am justified in making an appeal to the Government not to commence the discussion of the Bill at this early hour of the morning. This is a Bill with regard to which many different opinions are held in Scotland, and I therefore think that we should report Progress.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Mark Stewart.)

THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)&c.) (Clackmannan,

I hope the hon. Member opposite will not think it necessary to press his Motion to report Progress. I understand that there was only one point in the Bill about which there was any difference of opinion, and I submit that that matter has been thoroughly discussed already, and that there is nothing to prevent a settlement being arrived at.

SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL&c.) (Kirkcaldy,

I think I am justified in saying that there has been in Scotland an enormous amount of inconvenience with regard to this matter, which I fear, if it is not settled to night in Committee, may perhaps never be settled at all. What we want is uniformity of settlement, and as that principle has been supported by the majority, I think we ought to continue and venture to express the hope that the hon. Member for Kircudbright will withdraw his Motion.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 88; Noes 195: Majority 107.—(Div. List, No. 119.)

SIR ROBERT FOWLER (London)

At this late hour of the night, or rather early hour of the morning, I think it is well that respectable people should be thinking of going to bed. There was one remark which fell from the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell) to which I wish to refer. He said that this Bill should be passed at once, because this Parliament is likely to come to an end shortly, and therefore, it was as well to get this measure through as soon as possible. What I want to point out is this—that if the Parliament is to come to an end, it will do so next week, in which case the Bill cannot be got through in time, and if it is not to come to an end, then I suppose we shall go on sitting until the end of July; and, therefore, there is no reason I why we should be asked to sit up all night to-night to discuss this question now. Under those circumstances, Sir, I beg to move that you do now leave the Chair.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do now leave the Chair."—(Sir Robert Fowler.)

THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)&c.) (Clackmannan,

I will venture to make an appeal to the hon. Baronet not to press this Motion. There is practically no opposition to the Bill, and it will only take a few minutes to get through it. It is a very particular Bill, and it will be very convenient to take this stage now.

SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS (Lancashire, S.W., Newton)

The question seems to me to be this—how long are we to go on to-night? What we want to know from the Government is this—are they going on with any other Business to-night, or if this measure is taken will they then move the adjournment of the House? We do not feel inclined to go on at this hour of the night discussing private Members' Business. If the Government will move the adjournment of the House directly this is taken, all well and good; but if they will not give a distinct pledge of that sort, I shall, for one, support the Motion.

THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. STANSFELD) (Halifax)

I appreciate the demand of the right hon. Gentleman, which is that we shall not keep the House here for an unreasonable period of time; but I would point out that my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate is simply asking for this Bill, which will not take five minutes to dispose of. It appears to me that the question of the adjournment would arise very much better after this measure has been disposed of.

SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL&c.) (Kirkcaldy,

I would urge the hon. Baronet not to press his Motion. This Bill is quite as important as the Home Rule debate. It appeals to the minds of the people, and is very urgently wanted by the people of Scotland.

MR. PARNELL (Cork)

I hope that Scotch Members will take a lesson from these proceedings. In defining the meaning of "Obstruction" before a Committee which sat upon the question of Obstruction some years ago, the right hon. Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Raikes), who was perhaps as great an authority on the subject as could have been found in the House, said that it was the interruption of Bills which were not objected to, in order to prevent other Bills from coming on. That is what is being done now. This Bill is not objected to on its own merits, but it is opposed by the right hon. Member for South-West Lancashire (Sir R. Assheton Cross), so that other Bills may come on at so late an hour that obvious tactics may be used in order to prevent them being dealt with. I hope Scotch Members will mark this conduct of the right hon. Member for South-West Lancashire and his Friends—that their innocent measures for Scotland are objected to by the right hon. Gentleman and his followers, to prevent other measures coming on, and that they will see that the best way to prevent themselves being made the cat's paw for the purpose of pulling the chesnuts out of the fire for the right hon. Gentleman and his Friends is by allowing Irish Business to be conducted by an Irish Parliament.

SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS (Lancashire, S.W., Newton)

The hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Parnell) has entirely mistaken what I said. I am quite prepared to discuss any question from whatever country it comes, at a reasonable hour, but I am not prepared to devote an hour to the discussion of this Bill at this time in the morning, and then go on to other Business.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 59; Noes 200: Majority 147.—(Div. List, No. 120.)

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 2 and 3 agreed to.

Clause 4 (Terms of entry and removal from houses).

MR. MARK STEWART (Kirkcudbright)

I beg to move to leave out "fifteenth," in page 2, line 10, and insert "twenty-sixth." I do to because in many counties the 26th is a recognized term.

Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 10, to leave out the word "fifteenth," and insert the words "twenty-sixth."—(Mr. Mark Stewart.)

Question proposed, "That the word 'fifteenth' stand part of the Clause."

MR. E. ROBERTSON (Dundee)

I beg to move that "twenty-eighth" be inserted instead of "twenty-sixth."

THE CHAIRMAN

The Committee must first negative the "fifteenth."

THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)&c.) (Clackmannan,

As far as I can gather the opinion of the Scotch Members, it is that the 15th is not the most convenient day to adopt. Accordingly, whether the 26th or 28th be de- cided upon, I think it is well that the 15th should be left out.

Question put, and negatived.

Question proposed, "That the words 'twenty-sixth' be there inserted."

MR. E. ROBERTSON (Dundee)

I suggest that, instead of "twenty-sixth," "twenty-eighth" be inserted.

SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL&c.) (Kirkcaldy,

I believe that if we were approaching this subject for the first time the 26th would be the best day to adopt. But the fact is that at this moment the 28th prevails in many parts of Scotland. The great object of this Bill is to make the term uniform with as little change as possible. I prefer the 28th, and shall support it.

MR. WOODHEAD (York, W.R., Spen Valley)

I have received a great many letters regarding this matter, and in them the writers say that the 28th is absolutely necessary for the proper conduct of business. It has long been the practice in many parts of Scotland to have the 28th, and it is found that to change the day would lead to great inconvenience and a disturbance of business. It seems a very small matter, but from the letters which I have received I can tell you it is looked upon in Scotland as an important matter. I trust the Lord Advocate will adopt the 28th.

MR. E. ROBERTSON (Dundee)

I believe the Lord Advocate is in possession of more information as to the opinion of various districts of Scotland than anyone else; and I respectfully submit to him that he tell us what that opinion is.

THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)&c.) (Clackmannan,

I have taken a good deal of trouble to ascertain whether, if the 15th was not to be the day, what other day would suit the general convenience. I must admit that, according to the evidence I gathered, the 28th is most preferred.

MR. MARK STEWART (Kirkcudbright)

With the leave of the Committee, I beg to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Motion made, and Question, "That the words 'twenty-eight' be there inserted,"—(Mr. E. Robertson,)—put, and agreed to.

MR. MARK STEWART (Kirkcudbright)

I beg to move the omission of "eleventh," in line 11, and the insertion of "twenty-second." This Amendment will, I think, be generally accepted by the Committee, as the 22nd of November is a term universally observed in Scotland.

Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 11, to leave out the word "eleventh," and insert the words "twenty-second."—(Mr. Marl Stewart.)

Question proposed, "That the word 'eleventh' stand part of the Clause."

MR. E. ROBERTSON (Dundee)

I think the 28th is as proper a term in this case as in the other. I appeal to the Lord Advocate whether the evidence he has received does not bear out that view?

Question put, and negatived.

Question proposed, "That the words 'twenty-second' be there inserted."

THE LORD ADVOCATE

The information we have received certainly bears out the view the hon. Member for Dundee has expressed.

Question put, and negatived.

Motion made and Question, "That the words 'twenty-eight' be there inserted,"—(Mr. E. Robertson,)—put, and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Remaining Clauses agreed to.

Bill reported; as amended, to be considered To-morrow.