HC Deb 23 July 1888 vol 329 cc208-10
MR. OSBORNE MORGAN (Denbighshire, E.)

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether, having regard to the labour bestowed by the two Standing Committees on the five Bills already passed by them, and the prejudicial effect which the possible abandonment of those Bills would entail upon the whole system of delegation lately adopted by the House, as well as to the sub- stantial progress made with them, the Government will consider the expediency of taking up such Bills before the House adjourns, instead of relegating them, with other measures of a more controversial character, and in a less advanced stage, to the chances of an Autumn Session?

THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. H. SMITH) (Strand, Westminster)

I can add little as regards Bills which have passed Grand Committees to what I have previously said. I am afraid there is very little hope of escaping an Autumn Session. I will endeavour to consult the Business of the House and the interests of the country; but, at present, I am not in a position to state what arrangements can be made, but I will endeavour to do so on Thursday.

MR. W. E. GLADSTONE (Edinburgh, Mid Lothian)

I hope the statement will not be delayed beyond Thursday; because we have had a good deal of disappointment in the withholding of information up to the present date.

MR. W. H. SMITH

I can only say that I myself have been disappointed, because I have not been able to foresee the events which have occurred, or the delays which have taken place; but I shall endeavour to consult the convenience of the House, and to arrive at a satisfactory determination.

MR. MUNDELLA (Sheffield, Brightside)

Will the right hon. Gentleman give the House an assurance that the Bills will not be abandoned? One was referred to a Grand Committee last week, and it is proposed to take the same course with another to-night.

MR. W. H. SMITH

I do not think it is possible for me to add anything to the assurances I have already given. I attach the highest importance to those Bills. I said, when I made my statement on the course of Business, that it would amount to little less than a public scandal if these Bills were not passed into law during the present Session. That is my deliberate opinion still. It must remain with hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite to assist us in putting forward the Business of the nation.

MR. OSBORNE MORGAN

observed, that the Liability of Trustee Bill was referred to the Committee on Law. He wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he was aware that this Grand Committee had already sat nearly three months and had passed four Bills, and that it was exceedingly unlikely that a fifth Bill of this importance could be adequately discussed at the fag end of a Session?

MR. W. H. SMITH

said, that the right hon. and learned Gentleman must be aware that Her Majesty's Government could only be responsible for the conduct of their own measures. He did not think that the Liability of Trustee Bill was a Government measure.

MR. HENRY H. FOWLER (Wolverhampton, E.)

asked, whether it was not a fact that some months ago, when Questions relating to the procedure with regard to Public Business were being discussed, Her Majesty's Government pledged themselves to give facilities for this Bill if it came down from the other House; and whether the arrangement was not made with the full sanction of the Attorney General?

MR. W. H. SMITH

said, he thought it probable that the statement of the right hon. Gentleman was absolutely accurate; but it was not for him (Mr. W. H. Smith) to ask the House to sit longer than was necessary for Government measures in order to pass this particular Bill. The Government would be exceedingly glad to see the House pass measures coming from the House of Lords; but, as far as he was concerned, he was only responsible for Government measures.