§ THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH) (Strand, Westminster)I trust that a question of a character which makes it disagreeable for this House to entertain it may now be considered to have terminated, and that we may be permitted to proceed to the Business set down for consideration. Perhaps I may, at the outset, refer to some remarks which fell from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Sir William Harcourt) last week, with reference to the character of the debate this evening. The right hon. Gentleman said that he hoped that opportunity would be given for a general discussion of the subject to which our attention is now turned; and I concur in the view of the right hon. Gentleman, that as much latitude as possible should be given to hon. Members for the discussion of the general principles which underlie the Rules which will be submitted to the House. I shall, in the observations which I have to make, endeavour as far as possible to avoid that kind of obstruction which results from the delivery of a very long speech. The question of Procedure is one with which the whole House is so thoroughly intimate that a long argument or complicated statement of facts is not required in order to prove that its consideration is a matter of urgent necessity. In endeavouring to obtain, the concurrence of the House to these Rules I shall seek to avoid making a single observation which could excite the opposition of hon. Members on the 187 opposite side of the House; and I shall try to recommend the changes which we favour, on the ground that they are necessary for the maintenance of the efficiency of Parliament; for the vindication of the authority of the House over its own proceedings; and for the purpose of enabling the House to discharge the duties which are entrusted to it by the country. I do not think there is a single Member in the House who will deny that, after struggling for many years against the difficulties with which the House has had to contend, it is absolutely necessary to place some restriction on that perfect liberty of debate which we have formerly enjoyed. Some change in the conduct of the Business of this House must be made. The right hon. Gentleman opposite (the Member for Derby) has already intimated that in his opinion our proposals are not sufficiently drastic; but it is with extreme unwillingness that we bring them forward, and thus place restrictions on that liberty which Members of this House have hitherto enjoyed. The first Rule is one founded upon the Rule with regard to closure which is at present in existence, and which has been put in force under your authority. There is, however, a marked change. Instead of placing the sole responsibility upon the Speaker of intimating to the House that, in his opinion, it is the evident sense of the House that the discussion shall terminate; our new Rule enables any Member to move that the Question be now put—that is, to enforce the closure, provided that he first obtains the Speaker's permission to make that Motion. That is a change of very considerable importance. The Speaker will, according to this Rule, exercise a control over the application of the closure, which will afford security for ample discussion, and for the rights of minorities. The Speaker occupies a judicial position in this House, which may be of the highest benefit to the House itself and to the country by securing the rights of minorities and, at the same time, the dignity of the House of Commons; securing the rights of minorities without, however, allowing them to become a tyrannical obstruction to the Business of the House. By this Rule full security will be obtained that the debate shall not be closed until, in the judgment of the Speaker, the discussion has been sufficient. Pri- 188 vate Members are particularly interested in this matter—it is especially their interest that the business of the country should be expeditiously transacted; for, at present, the Government have constantly to ask for special facilities which deprive private Members of their opportunities of bringing forward those subjects in which they are peculiarly interested. The proposals we make under the head of "devolution" do not go so far as the right hon. Gentleman opposite would, I believe, desire. We do not propose to divide the House into four or five Grand Committees for the consideration of all Bills. There is no security that if a Committee of one-fourth or one-fifth of the House had considered an important measure minutely in Committee, the other three-fourths or four-fifths would not deal with it again at great length when the measure returned to the House. Our proposal is to restore the Standing Committees which were in operation some time ago, to create another Grand Committee, and to refer to these Committees certain classes of Bills. The proposals of the Government are before the House as a whole; and I must point out that, unless the first Rule is adopted, it will be impossible to secure that change in regard to the Sittings of the House which I believe hon. Members generally desire. It is obviously out of the question that there should be an Adjournment at any fixed time, unless there exists the power of closing a debate before the Adjournment. In the absence of the closure the adjournment of the House at any fixed hour could be largely utilized for the purpose of obstruction. The second Rule deals with Motions of Adjournment, and, I think, will be recognized as a distinct improvement. To the Speaker, as the Officer responsible for the order of the House, and, as such, the custodian of its glorious traditions, the power is given of deciding what is "a matter of urgent public importance." This we think is a far better plan than that of requiring a certain number of Members to rise in their places in support of the Motion. I shall not enter into details upon the other Rules; but when they are reached, I shall be prepared to urge what arguments I have in support of them. I commend these Rules to the House with some reluctance, since they are restrictive in their character 189 but the time has come when such Rules are necessary, and I would appeal to hon. Members to bear in mind that they are not merely Representatives of a certain constituency, but Members of the first Legislative Assembly in the world; whose duty it is to see that its traditions remain unimpaired, and that it continues to be able to discharge its duty to the nation. Many hon. Gentlemen are frequently called upon to make the sacrifice of refraining even from good words, when facts and arguments have been stated over and over again without gaining any additional force. It is therefore the case that do what we may, and whatever Rules we lay down for the discussion of the Business of the House, we must still appeal to hon. Members themselves—to appeal to them to consider who they are, what they are, what they came here to do, and what responsibility is upon them. The duty is imposed upon me of endeavouring, however feebly it may be, to urge this appeal upon hon. Members of this House, because without the assistance of hon. Members themselves it is impossible for the House to do its duty. Make any regulations you please; but it is impossible for the House to discharge its duty by the country without this assistance. I know it may be said that the work of the House has increased. That is perfectly true; the work has increased, but our speeches have become longer and more frequent; hon. Members seem to consider it necessary to the constituencies that they represent that they should speak frequently and at greater length; and if they will consider the arithmetical proportion between the number of Members of the House and the time at its disposal, I think they will recognize the truth in a great measure of the saying that if speech is silvern silence is golden. I apologize if I have not made a full or complete statement of the grounds upon which I submit this Motion to the House. If I have failed in any way, it has been from the desire to make my statement as concise as it can be made. The Motion itself is one which is intended to apply not to our Procedure this year, but for many years to come, and it is nearly identical with the one which was passed in 1882. The only change, Sir, made by this Motion in the existing Order is that any Member of the House may have the right to make the Motion with your con- 190 sent. I will only further say that I trust we may now, without further unnecessary delay, proceed to the regulation of our Business, and arrive at last to the actual conduct of the Business of the House. The right hon. Gentleman concluded by moving the first Rule which applies to the closure of debate.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed,