HC Deb 01 August 1888 vol 329 cc1191-4

In reply to Mr. MUNDELLA,

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN) (St. George's, Hanover Square)

said, that if the course indicated for to-morrow were carried out it was the intention to take Supply on Friday.

MR. W. P. SINCLAIR&c.) (Falkirk,

asked whether there would be a Sitting of the House on Saturday, and whether it would be occupied with Scotch Business?

MR. GOSCHEN

replied, that there would be a Sitting of the House on Saturday; but he was afraid it would be impossible to take Scotch Business.

MR. MUNDELLA (Sheffield, Brightside)

asked whether the Vote on Account would be taken on Friday?

THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON) (Leeds, N.)

It is not quite settled. Either the Army and the Navy Votes or the Vote on Account will be taken.

MR. J. B. BALFOUR&c.) (Clackmannan,

asked what the Government intended to do with regard to Scotch Business?

MR. GOSCHEN

The original intention was to take it on Saturday. That was when we believed that the Members of Parliament (Charges and Allegations) Bill would not occupy so much time as it has done, and our expectations were founded on communications from the other side of the House.

MR. MARJORIBANKS (Berwickshire)

said, that, as far as he was aware, unless Scottish Business was taken on Saturday, it would be quite useless to take it until after the Adjournment, because Scottish Members would have gone away from London. They had already waited much longer than Scottish Members cared to do.

MR. GOSCHEN

said, that no one regretted more than the Government the circumstances which had led to the delay.

MR. R. T. REID&c.) (Dumfries,

asked if the Government would give the following Saturday, or had they abandoned the idea altogether of taking any Scottish Business?

MR. GOSCHEN

said, that the Government had not abandoned the idea, and would be glad if they found themselves able to give a day, possibly one that would suit better than a Saturday. But, as he had said, their plans had been disarranged by the delay in getting through the Committee stage of the Charges and Allegations Bill.

MR. HUNTER (Aberdeen, N.)

hoped the Government would keep in mind that it would be utterly contrary to the wishes of Scottish Members to take any day later than Saturday for Scottish Business.

MR. R. T. REID

asked whether there would be any opportunity of discussing whether or not Saturday should be taken for Scottish Business?

MR. GOSCHEN

said, he was afraid there would be no such opportunity; but he had been requested last night to make representations to the First Lord of the Treasury that Saturday would be an inconvenient day for Scottish Busi- ness, and it was very difficult for the Government to arrange to please all.

DR. TANNER (Cork Co., Mid)

asked if he was to understand that Scottish Members were to be kept there for Scottish Business till the 12th August, when they ought to be on the moors shooting grouse?

MR. MUNDELLA

asked whether the Vote on Account would be put first on Friday?

MR. JACKSON

said, Her Majesty's Government would endeavour to do so.

COLONEL HUGHES (Woolwich)

asked that some facilities might be given to the School Board Elections Bill, as it had the unanimous approval of the Metropolitan Members, and it had been retarded owing to its being persistently blocked. It was highly desirable that it should pass before the November elections.

MR. MUNDELLA

expressed a hope that the Government would accede to the hon. and gallant Member's appeal.

MR. T. M. HEALY (Longford, N.)

said, he had blocked the Bill because the supporters of the Government last night had blocked one of his Bills, to which the Solicitor General for Ireland bad assented. He hoped the Government would bring some pressure to bear on their supporters in this matter, so as to prevent that practice by their supporters.

MR. BIGGAR

said, the Bill of the hon. and gallant Member for Woolwich (Colonel Hughes) was a very objectionable one.

MR. CHANCE (Kilkenny, S.)

hoped the Rule as to blocking Notices would be altered. He thought it absurd that one single Member should be able to stop the progress of a Bill. The Rule should require at least 10 Members to object. He hoped the Chief Secretary would use his influence with his Friends to induce them to remove their blocking Notices.

MR. R. T. REID

said, he would appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to do something in connection with this matter of "objecting." It was well known who blocked the Bills. There were only one or two Members who did so, and as long long as the practice continued there would be reprisals.

MR. D. CRAWFORD (Lanark, N.E.)

said, he could corrobate what his hon. Friend had just said. He had had a Bill on the Paper seven days on a non-contentious matter affecting Scotland, but it had been objected to on each occasion, and it was done almost in silence, so that he had not been able even to find out who objected. He thought nothing could be more unfortunate than that they should be driven to reprisals; but he would certainly object and block any Bills of Gentlemen in the House unless the practice was discontinued.

THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR) (Manchester, E.)

said, that the Government had been appealed to to induce their followers to stop the practice. He confessed he had the utmost difficulty, almost amounting to impossibility, in appealing to any Gentleman on his side of the House after the manner in which he had seen the Bills of Members on his side systematically blocked by Members from Ireland. The hon. and learned Member for North Longford must be aware that there were Gentlemen in his part of the House who were the great promoters of the practice, and as long as that continued he was afraid it was impossible to do anything.

MR. MUNDELLA

Alter the Rule.

DR. TANNER

remarked, that year after year Bills were systematically blocked simply out of spite, because they had been brought in by Members from Ireland. Under these circumstances, it behoved the Government to set their own house in order and take the beam out of their own eye.

MR. E. ROBERTSON (Dundee)

said, he did not think the present Rule as to blocking required any amendment.

MR. GENT-DAVIS (Lambeth, Kennington)

said, that the Rule ought to be modified.

MR. HUNTER

said, that the blocker often discharged a very useful task in preventing Bills being proceeded with that could not be adequately discussed.