HC Deb 02 September 1886 vol 308 cc1162-72

Report of Address brought up, and read the first time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Address be read a second time."

MR. PARNELL (Cork)

I wish to know whether the Report of the Address can be taken without Notice and without the consent of the House?

MR. SPEAKER

It is not uncommon that the Report of the Address should be taken immediately the Address has been agreed to.

MR. PARNELL

But with the general consent of the House? I have never seen that the Report of the Address was taken immediately when any considerable section of the House objected to its being taken without Notice. I should apprehend that the same rule would apply as in the Report stage of a Bill, which requires it to be put down on a separate day if it is opposed by any considerable section of the House.

MR. SPEAKER

There is no Notice necessary for the Report of the Address. No Notice is ever given of the Report of the Address; it is brought up as a matter of course immediately after the Address is agreed to.

MR. PARNELL

Then, Sir, I shall move that it be considered at the next Sitting of the House.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Mr. Parnell.)

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Lord RANDOLPH CHURCHILL) (Paddington, S.)

Sir, I certainly think I shall not be making an unreasonable request to the hon. Member for the City of Cork and his Friends in asking that the further proceedings on the Address be taken tonight. The hon. Member is aware that we have now occupied 11 Sittings of the House with the discussion on the Queen's Speech—a length of time which has, however, been exceeded on one or more occasions. When I take into consideration the period of the year, the extreme inconvenience imposed on the great body of the House by the excessive prolongation of our Parliamentary proceedings, I own that I am sanguine that the great majority of the House will support me in the appeal which I now make. The hon. Member for the City of Cork will have observed that the matters on which he was more particularly interested have been discussed with great amplitude and deliberation, and there is no further Amendment upon the Paper which raises any Irish subject of great interest. We have no reason to believe that, up to the present moment, the hon. Member for the City of Cork or his Friends desired now to raise any other question which could not be conveniently raised in this House hereafter; and I do not think I am asking the House to do an unreasonable thing when I say that I adhere to my strong opinion that it is greatly to the convenience of the House and to the ad- vantage of the Public Service that the proceedings on the Report of the Address should be brought to a conclusion tonight.

MR. LABOUCHERE (Northampton)

I would point out that an Amendment upon one stage of the Address grows out of what has taken place at the previous stage, and it is obvious that it was impossible to put down an Amendment on Report. Now, the action of the noble Lord this evening, in declining to give any answer to my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby (Sir William Harcourt), has made me think it desirable that there should be an Amendment to the Report of the Address, and that Amendment I propose to put down if the Report be taken at the next Sitting. The Amendment goes to state that the language used by the noble Lord at Belfast was calculated to provoke a breach of the law, and that it ought to be publicly withdrawn in view of the preservation of the peace in Ireland. I cannot suppose that the noble Lord, when his action is directly challenged, will endeavour to evade it by a Parliamentary manœuvre on the Report of the Address this evening; but if he does, I can only tell him that there are Gentlemen in this part of the House who will exhaust every Form of the House in order to prevent it.

Question put.

COLONEL COLOMB (Tower Hamlets, Bow, &c.)

(seated, and with his hat on): Mr. Speaker, at this moment an hon. Member crossed from the other side of the House and said to me that I had said he was paid for obstructing, and that I was a liar. ["Name, name!"] It was the hon. Member for Mid Cork (Dr. Tanner).

MR. SPEAKER

If the hon. Member for Mid Cork made use of any expression of that kind, perhaps he will give some explanation to the House.

DR. TANNER (Cork Co., Mid)

(seated, and with his hat on): The hon. and gallant Gentleman just now stated in the most offensive way that I was paid for trying to keep up a long discussion on the Address, and I told him distinctly that he was a liar. I should not have made use of such strong language had I not been greatly provoked by the offensive way in which the hon. and gallant Gentleman singled me out.

MR. SPEAKER

It will be most convenient that the division should proceed, and that the two hon. Gentlemen should attend in their places immediately after the division.

The House divided:—Ayes 121;Noes 228: Majority 107.—(Div. List, No. 9.)

MR. SPEAKER

I wish to revert to the incident which, occurred when the division was being taken. The statements of both hon. Members are in possession of the House, and it is therefore for the House to deal with them. I have spoken to both the hon. Members concerned, and the hon. and gallant Gentleman who used the first expression tells me that he did not use it in the sense in which it was understood by the hon. Member. The hon. and gallant Member tells me that he was most unwilling to give pain to the hon. Member for Mid Cork (Dr. Tanner), and has absolutely and without reserve withdrawn the expression. The hon. Member for Mid Cork also, in the most frank and unreserved manner, withdrew the expression which he used. After that explanation the House may, perhaps, think it right that the incident—a very unfortunate incident—should terminate.

The following is the Entry in the Votes:— The House was proceeding to a Division when complaint was made by Captain Colomb, Member for the Bow and Bromley Division of the Tower Hamlets, of offensive words addressed to him by Dr. Tanner, Member for Mid Cork, Mr. Speaker called on Dr. Tanner to explain, who addressed the Chair sitting covered. Thereupon Mr. Speaker recommended the House to proceed with the Division before dealing with the subject of the complaint.

The House accordingly divided; Ayes 121, Noes 228. Mr. Speaker then addressed the House, and said that, as the words complained of had been used in the House, the matter came under his authority; that, while the Division was in progress, both the honourable Members had expressed to him their deep regret at the occurrence, and had unreservedly withdrawn the words that had given offence, and tendered their apologies to each other and the House.

Original Question again proposed, "That the Address be read a second time."

MR. JAMES STUART (Shoreditch, Hoxton)

In the discussion which, has just terminated I must say that I shared the expectation that the noble Lord would have taken the opportunity of vindicating himself. ["Question!"] This is the question directly before the House. Hon. Members are proceeding in this matter in exactly the way desired by the noble Lord—namely, that if his conduct in respect of Belfast was to be challenged it should be done in some direct way. Well, Sir, my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) gives Notice of an Amendment which arises immediately from these circumstances, in the most convenient way in which it can be done—that is to say, on the Report of the Address; and, therefore, as my hon. Friend's action has been, to some extent, called in question, and as the noble Lord's position is, I think, somewhat serious, I shall conclude with a Motion. I think his action in respect of Belfast really calls for some explanation on his part; and as I think it only right that we should allow him, and perhaps some other Members of the Government, to consider the situation, I beg to move the adjournment of the House.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."— (Mr. James Stuart.)

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCXEQUER (Lord RANDOLPH CHURCHILL) (Paddington, S.)

It is not necessarily a subject of unmixed regret for myself and my Colleagues and hon. Gentlemen on this side of the House to observe that the chief part in the delay and the arresting of the progress of Public Business is being taken by the prominent Members of the Radical Party. That is a fact of which the country will no doubt take notice. Her Majesty's Government cannot certainly agree to this Motion for the adjournment of the House; and I take this opportunity also of saying that as the Government will distinctly consider that such a Motion as has been given Notice of by the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) would be nothing more nor less than a most unprofitable waste of public time, neither I nor any of my Colleagues will be any party to such a waste of time; nor shall we in any way encourage it by taking any part in the discus- sion which the hon. Member may think it right to raise. I am perfectly aware that it is in the power of hon. Members opposite to bring the Public Business of this country to a standstill. At any rate, Her Majesty's Government know their duty, and will struggle to the best of their power against such tactics, and will resist them.

MR. J. E. ELLIS (Nottingham, Rushcliffe)

My hon. Friend who moved the adjournment, and I, who seconded, are quite willing to accept the responsibility of our actions in this House; but we do not accept the responsibility which the noble Lord has endeavoured to lay upon us—of endeavouring to delay the Business of the House. After the manner in which the language of the noble Lord was characterized by the Leader of the Opposition (Sir William Harcourt) we think that this House has a right to have from the noble Lord some explanation; and as long as the noble Lord chooses to preserve the contemptuous silence which he has adopted, so long may he expect that Members on this side will do what they believe to be their duty in the matter.

MR. PARNELL (Cork)

I think, Sir, in view of the past history of the noble Lord the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Lord Randolph Churchill) that it is rather cool of him, to say the least of it, to talk about our bringing the Business of the country to a standstill. It certainly does not lie in his mouth, even if he had some evidence to offer to the House of the truth of his assertion—and he has none—to accuse others of attempting to stop the Business of the country. Now, Sir, it is no question at present of stopping legislation, because we are promised none by the Government. So, therefore, the Business of the country that we are accused of stopping does not consist of legislation. On the contrary, if it had been possible for any portion of the Business of the country to consist of legislation, that legislation would have been stopped by the exertions of the noble Lord. What then, Sir, is the Business that we are stopping—that we are alleged to be stopping? It is the work of voting Supply. Now, none of the Departments are in want of money. [Cries of "Question!"] Votes on Account were given—[Renewed cries of "Question!" and "Order!"]. I am speaking to the Ques- tion as far as I understand it, Mr. Speaker, in plea of another day for the discussion of the Amendment of which. Notice has just been given by the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere). I say Votes on Account were given by the late Parliament to the public Departments until next October. Therefore, it cannot be pleaded that there is any urgency for the only Public Business that the Government have called us together to transact. So much for the contention that has bean set up by the noble Lord as to stopping the Business of the country. Well, now, I just wish to say another word as to the question of proceeding with the Report of the Address without Notice. I do not in the least, Sir, differ from your ruling; but I will say this—that I have never known any Leader of the House of Commons attempt to proceed with the Report on the Address without Notice, after that course had been objected to by any section, however small, of the Opposition. It has always been held that there might fairly be an interval between the two stages of the Address, in order to give hon. Members time, if they desire it, to raise any further question which might have been brought into more prominent notice in the debates on a previous stage. And this custom has always been recognized by every Leader of the House of Commons. The noble Lord seems to desire to make a new precedent. He was at one time a very ardent upholder of the rights of minorities and freedom of debate; and I would ask him to look back a little on his past, and remember, although he may be in a very proud position tonight at the head of a victorious Party, that, just as wheels turn, so Governments are occasionally upset, and that he may once again be a Member of a minority, and, perhaps, a small minority. He may then desire to have that fair play for minorities which he is certainly now endeavouring to destroy. Is there any particular advantage in going on with this wrangle? The debate on the different Amendments to the Address has occupied a good many days on technical issues. It has taken 11 days; but other debates have taken a greater number of days than that, when less important events have happened in the country than those which preceded the present state of affairs and the present Government coming into power. Really, therefore, I think, in view of the fact that this is the last chance we shall have for raising any question connected with the conduct of the noble Lord, in view of the very grave position of affairs in Belfast, and of the intention of the Government to take all the days of private Members in order to proceed with the Business of Supply, it is not an unreasonable request to make to the noble Lord that he should give another day for the discussion of the very important Amendment to be moved by the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere). I cannot understand how, with any sense of justice, much less with any common sense, the request can be refused. At all events, it is supported by a large minority; and the invariable result of such a state of things is that the Government has, sooner or later, to give way. I shall venture to hope that the noble Lord will give way sooner rather than later, and allow us all to go home.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes 120;Noes 223: Majority 103.—(Div. List, No. 10.)

Original Question again proposed.

MR. DILLWYN (Swansea Town)

The hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) just now said that within his recollection it had not been the practice of the House to proceed at once with the Report on the Address immediately after the debate. I quite agree with him that it is an inconvenient practice, and it is a course I have never known pursued except by consent. It is a very inconvenient practice, especially when it is obvious that a very large minority of the House are opposed to it. There is another reason why it is desirable that there should be a little time given us between the two stages of the Queen's Speech, and that is because the conduct of the noble Lord the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Lord Randolph Churchill) was called in question, by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Sir William Harcourt); and according to your ruling, Sir, which took a great many of us, myself amongst the number, very much by surprise— ["Order!"] I do not call your ruling in Question, Sir; I merely say it is a reason why we should have a discussion on the conduct of the noble Lord. That is an important matter, and the country at large will think so as well as this House. It was not discussed in so full a manner as we wished. That is the reason why we think there should be a little more delay. I trust we shall not go on with this wrangle, for, as on similar occasions in the past, I have never known any good come out of them, we cannot expect it now. I venture to hope that the noble Lord will reconsider his decision, and will not go on any further with this wrangle. A great many of us have made up our minds to exhaust every power we possess to secure that the period of time we consider necessary should elapse between the two stages of the Address. I venture now to move that the debate be adjourned.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Mr. Dillwyn.)

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Lord RANDOLPH CHURCHILL) (Paddington, S.)

I quite admit that when the adjournment of the debate has been moved by a very old Member of the House—by a very experienced Member of the House, and by the last Member from whom I should have expected such a Motion, and when it is supported by a minority of 100, it is, of course, useless for the Government—or the majority rather—to continue the struggle. I always understood that one of the most sacred tenets of the Radical Party was that the majority should prevail, and I observe that the indisposition to protract this debate has been confirmed by a majority numbering more than 100 Members. But if, in the face of that majority, the Radical Party are determined to continue their action, which I can only designate as obstructive—

MR. PARNELL (Cork)

I rise to Order, Sir. I wish to know whether the noble Lord is entitled to impute a Parliamentary offence to any Member or Party in this House, the offence of obstruction?

MR. SPEAKER

I have never understood that there was anything un-Parliamentary in attributing that quality to any hon. Member.

LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL

I am sorry that the nerves of the hon. Member for the City of Cork are so sensitive. However, I am only going to say that it would be a useless occupation for the House to continue the discussion; and, therefore, the Government will agree to the Motion for the adjournment of the debate.

MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR (Donegal, E.)

Before you put that, Mr. Speaker, I should like to say, with reference to the question of a separate Sitting for the consideration of the Report on the Address, that it is perfectly true that there are precedents that can be cited for taking the Report on the Address on the day when it is brought in, yet that that is altogether an exceptional course. The precedents were in 1881 and 1883, and they are especially pointed out by Sir Erskine May as exceptional cases. In 1882, on the Question of adjourning the debate—

MR. SPEAKER

The hon. Gentleman is not rising to a point of Order. The Question before the House is the adjournment of the debate.

MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR

Quite so, Sir.

MR. SPEAKER

The Question before the House now is the adjournment of the debate.

MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR

That is precisely the point to which I wish to address myself. I did not rise to a point of Order. I am perfectly well aware that the Question is the adjournment of the debate, and as to that I say that the Motion for Adjournment is not by any means unusual. If the noble Lord is in Order in imputing obstruction to a Member or section of this House, I am, at least, equally in Order in repelling the insinuation. In the year 1882, after a debate of six nights on the Address, the Report, which might have been taken at the same Sitting, was deferred from the 14th to the 15th of February. The debate on the Report was started by Sir H. Drummond Wolff. That debate, in which a considerable number of the Members of the present Government took part, lasted for another three nights. How, under these circumstances, the charge of obstruction can be made by any hon. or right hon. Gentleman on the Front Bench opposite I cannot understand, and I desire to repel the insinuation.

Motion agreed to.

Debate adjourned till Tomorrow.

House adjourned at a quarter after One o'clock.