§ SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH (Bristol, W.)Sir, I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government, Whether it is the intention of the Government to ask for a Vote on Account on Monday; and, whether the report which has reached me is accurate, that it is proposed for that purpose to place Supply as the first Order on Monday, instead of following the general practice of taking such a Vote at a late hour in the evening, and thus avoiding the inconvenience that would attend the interruption of the debate on the Government of Ireland Bill? I would also ask the right hon. Gentleman, whether he has made any further inquiry as to the probable duration of the debate on the Government of Ireland Bill; and, if so, with what result? I would venture to repeat what I said the other day, that there is every desire on the part of those who sit in this quarter of the House, even at the risk of sacrificing their opportunity of taking part in that debate, to assist the Government in arriving at a conclusion. [Laughter from the Home Rulers and Ministerialists and Opposition cheers.] I do not understand that interruption, because I think I am entitled to put it to hon. Members below the Gangway, who are the authors or supporters of this measure—[Interruption]—whether they really think they are thus helping its future prospects?
§ MR. T. M. HEALY (Londonderry, S.)I would ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether it is in Order for the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, in asking a Question of the Prime Minister, to address a lecture to Members in this part of the House?
§ MR. LABOUCHERE (Northampton)I would also ask the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government, whether he is aware that there are 1664 at least 70 Members on this side of the House who are desirous of addressing the House on this important subject?
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON (Lancashire, Rossendale)Before my right hon. Friend answers the Questions that have been put to him, perhaps he will allow me to say that I observe that my right hon. Friend referred the other day, in giving an answer on this question, to the wish of a very large number of Members who are going to oppose the Government measure to take part in the debate, and give individual explanations as to the course they will pursue. It is quite true that there are several hon. Members who intend to oppose this Bill who have not yet spoken, and who are anxious to speak, and among them there are some whose speeches would be, by general acknowledgment, not the least important contributions to the debate. But, as far as I have been able to ascertain, there is no such general desire on the part of the hon. Members who intend to oppose the Bill to give anything approaching individual explanations as to the course they are going to take. And I am able to say positively that many hon. Members who would desire, if they could obtain the opportunity, to speak, would, nevertheless, be willing to waive that desire in case it should be found to entail such a prolongation of the debate as would in their and our opinion rather lead to confusing the issue before the House than to elucidating it. I need not say that I have not the smallest complaint to make of the course the debate has hitherto taken. We propose—[Cries of "Order!"]
§ MR. SPEAKERThere is no Question immediately before the House. The noble Marquess is entitled to ask a Question as to the course of important Business, but not to go into any argument.
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONI must ask the pardon of the House for having said as much as I have; but I thought that before my right hon. Friend answered the Questions, it would be desirable that he should be in possession of all the information on the subject.
§ MR. JOSEPH CHAMBERLAIN (Birmingham, W.)Before my right hon. Friend replies, I also should like to say one word with reference to the question 1665 raised. I have taken the trouble to make inquiries—["Order!"]
§ THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. E. GLADSTONE) (Edinburgh, Mid Lothian)I understand that Questions are Questions, and that statements are statements. If the statement of my noble Friend, which was apparently to be followed by a series of other statements, had been conveyed to me before I came to my place to answer the perfectly regular Question of the right hon. Gentleman opposite, I should have been very glad to have given it every possible weight, and to inquire into the circumstances of a statement which is quite at variance with that which had reached me through the channels which are usually employed for making communications as to the desire of hon. Members to take part in the debate. I could then have inquired into these circumstances, and I could have ascertained and satisfied myself how the facts stood, and, consequently, have given some satisfaction to my noble Friend. In the same way, in regard to my right hon. Friend the Member for West Birmingham, nobody would be more willing than I to receive information upon the subject; but to receive statements of that kind, and to weigh them upon the instant without any power of communication with those to whom I look for information on the subject, and who are not in the habit of giving me that information without some consideration of what they say, is a course I do not think is either regular in a Parliamentary sense, or likely to contribute to the satisfactory conduct of Business. That is a frank explanation in reply to the very frank statement the noble Marquess has made. I can only say that I have no reason—I have had no reason until I came down to the House to-day—to modify in any way the statement which I made on a former night. After what has been said by my noble Friend—and further information may, perhaps, reach me to the same effect—I will certainly consider it before the debate is again resumed. That is, I think, the utmost I can do. I certainly cannot undertake to throw over the information conveyed to me without having an opportunity of carefully comparing it with the contrary information I have received. So much for the debate. I will do my best to put 1666 myself in a condition to speak on the subject on the next day of the debate. With regard to the course of Business on Monday, it will be our duty to ask for a Vote on Account, and we shall take it for the shortest period that will be at all sufficient to give us the necessary amount—namely, for a month. It will be likewise necessary, with the view of putting the Military Departments in cash, to take an Army Vote and a Navy Vote. I am sorry to say that it will be our duty to put the Arms Bill down as the second Order on Monday. Neither the Votes on Account nor the Committee on the Bill, so far as I know, are likely to lead to any lengthened debate. Still, the Committee stage is one which we should hardly like the House to take after half-past 12 or 1 in the morning. Our object then will be to go forward—without any further interruption of the course of the adjourned debate—with the stages of the Arms Bill from day to day, because there is no time to lose if we are to bring the Bill into operation at the time the old Act expires.
§ SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHDoes the right hon. Gentleman intend that the future stages of the Arms Bill will have precedence over the Government of Ireland Bill?
§ MR. W. E. GLADSTONENo; I said without further interruption of the course of the debate.