COMMITTEE. (Hansard, 10 June 1887)

§ MR. T. M. HEALY (Longford, N.)
I beg to move that the Bill be set down for to-morrow (Saturday). I think that as we are to have the Bill reported next Friday, the very least we can ask is that the Bill should be taken to-day. It would be too much to go on with the Bill now—the officers of the House deserve some consideration at our hands—but it would be reasonable to consider the measure again to-day. Seeing that Saturday is an off-day, I do not think anybody will grudge the Irish Members the opportunity of considering the Bill to-day. Even the noble Marquess the Member for Rossendale (the Marquess of Hartington) will not grudge the Irish Members a Saturday Sitting for the discussion of this Bill. I, therefore, trust the Government will see their way to consent to a Sitting to-day. There is, perhaps, one obstacle in the way, but I do not think the House will regard it as insurmountable, and that is the Naval Review at Portsmouth. The Irish Mem- 1675 bers are quite willing to save the time of the nation and preserve the dignity of the House by going on with the Bill tomorrow, when really you cannot say you have any other Business to transact. What is the objection to take the Bill to-morrow? My Motion will test the sincerity, the bona fides, of Members of the House who talk about their sacrifices. Are you prepared to sacrifice the Naval Review? We shall see whether you prefer your Buffalo Bill programme to the Business of the House. I beg to move the omission of "Monday," and the insertion of "To-morrow."

§ MR. W. H. SMITH
I am unable to accept the suggestion of the hon. and learned Gentleman; indeed, I cannot think it is made seriously. Throughout the discussion this evening we have spoken of five days next week, and no reference whatever has been made to a Sitting to-day. It would be most unfair and unjust to the officers of the House to fix a Sitting for to-day, and, therefore, I must refuse the proposal of the hon. and learned Gentleman.

§ MR. CHANCE (Kilkenny, S.)
I very much regret the First Lord of the Treasury, now he has got his Motion, has shown with what little fair-play he desires the House should treat us. we are fighting for the liberties and the fortunes of our people. We are fighting to prevent in future atrocities such as have occurred at Glenbeigh and Bodyke; we are fighting that old women shall not be batoned by your policemen. We want every hour between this and Friday next at 10 o'clock. What is the answer we receive? Virtually, it is that there is a Naval Review to-morrow which hon. Members wish to witness. Hon. Members who were returned pledged to do justice to Ireland will not sit this day, will not give up the miserable spectacle at Portsmouth to-day, and thus enable us to defend the liberties of our people. ["Oh, oh!"] It is very easy to cry "Oh, oh!" but they will not give up this miserable Review in order that we may do something to mitigate the 1676 evils of this Bill, and discuss many important questions which still remain to be discussed, I must say I thought some Members of the House would have had fair-play enough in them to agree to sit to-day. The First Lord of the Treasury has told us we said nothing earlier in the evening about a Saturday Sitting. We said something about extending the time till the 24th instant, and we were met with the statement that, owing to the state of Public Business, such an extension of time was impossible. There is no Public Business to be transacted to-morrow except the Naval Review. The Motion of my hon. and learned Friend is one which recommends itself.

§ MR. CONYBEARE (Cornwall, Camborne)
I am surprised that the natural sense of humour which the Leader of the House (Mr. W. H. Smith) possesses should have induced him to suppose that this Motion was not made in a serious spirit. I do not know whether it was made in a serious spirit or not; but I can only assure the right hon. Gentleman I rise in a serious spirit to support it. Whatever the spirit of self-sacrifice which hon. Gentlemen opposite are so fond of talking about may be, I am perfectly prepared to sacrifice the 17s. I have paid for a ticket for the special train to-day. I have a great regard for the courtesy of the noble and gallant Lord (Lord Charles Beresford) who has invited us to take part in this Review, and I take great interest in naval tactics and the benefit which will result from the Review; but I have a far greater regard for the dignity of this House. I think that, in view of the revolutionary tactics of the First Lord of the Treasury, it is our bounden duty to do what we can to mitigate the viciousness of the precedent he is setting up. I am perfectly willing to have a continuous Sitting until 10 o'clock on Friday next. The First Lord of the Treasury, with that admirable innocence which becomes him so well—[Cries of "Divide!"]—with that—[Renewed cries of "Divide!"]—with that—[Renewed cries of "Divide!"] I ask, what have we to think of the sincerity of the First Lord of the Treasury—[Cries of "Divide!"]—the First Lord of theTreasury—[Renewed cries of"Divide!"]—the First Lord of the Treasury—[Renewed cries of "Divide!"]—

§ MR. W. H. SMITH
Mr. Speaker, I beg to ask you if the hon. Gentleman is speaking to the Question before the House?

§ MR. SPEAKER
I regret the whole tone of this debate. I regard the tone in which the debate on this subject is conducted as a disgrace to the House.

§ MR. W. H. SMITH
I claim to move, "That the Question be now put."