HC Deb 15 May 1888 vol 326 cc334-59

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Order of the Day for the Committee on Imperial Defence [Expenses] have precedence this day of the Notices of Motion and other Orders of the Day."—(Mr. William Henry Smith.)

MR. BROADHURST (Nottingham, W.)

said, he must protest against the course proposed to be adopted by the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury (Mr. W. H. Smith). On Thursday last the right hon. Gentleman professed to recognize the importance of a Motion which stood in his (Mr. Broadhurst's) name on the Paper for to-night, and went so far as to give a pledge to keep a House for the discussion of the subject until 10 o'clock at night. But the right hon. Gentleman had broken faith, and now proposed to take the whole of the Sitting for Business which might well be taken at some other time. It was perfectly conceivable that a measure for the Imperial defence of the country was of more pressing importance than the Motion he proposed to bring forward; but that was no answer to his appeal. The reply to that was that the Imperial Defence Bill was of more im- portance than the King-Harman Salary Bill, and the Imperial Defence Bill could have been taken yesterday in preference to the Colonel King-Harman Bill. If it was irregular to mention the name of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, he would say that the Parliamentary Under Secretary for Ireland (Salary) Bill could have been taken on some other occasion. They were asked to believe a most astounding proposition—namely, that it was of such importance for the Government to provide a salary for a political friend that the National Defences Bill must be delayed. The appropriation by the Government of a private Members' Sitting at this period of the Session, especially when Public Business was in such a forward position, was altogether unprecedented. They had learned a good deal from right hon. Gentlemen opposite—even from the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord himself, and the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland (Mr. A. J. Balfour), as well as the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Goschen). The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in a speech delivered in the country in the early part of the year, told them that this was to be a Session for English legislation, and that the interests of the English people were to command and receive the attention of Her Majesty's Government. But where, up to the present moment, had been the interests of the English people which had been considered? So far, it had been a Session for the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Under Secretary, and it was certainly much more like a King-Harman's Session than anything else. He protested against the proceedings of the Government, and he hoped the House would do something to show the Government how unjustifiable those proceedings were, and he should certainly divide the House as a protest. He had secured a place on the Paper for that evening, which afforded a favourable opportunity for submitting to the consideration of the House a subject of great interest and importance to the poorer classes of the people of the country. He made this protest with some warmth, but he believed that that warmth was fully justified by the conduct of the Government. He begged to give the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury Notice that if any other person, of more importance and authority than himself, would make a proposition, he would willingly divide the House against the Motion which the right hon. Gentleman had just submitted.

MR. LABOUCHERE (Northampton)

said, the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury pressed the proverb too far that "silence was golden." He had brought forward a proposal like this, and had not even apologized for it, although it was a distinct breach of a deliberate bargain entered into by the right hon. Gentleman. What was it that the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury did last week? When questioned on the subject, he assured the hon. Gentleman the Member for West Nottingham (Mr. Broadhurst) that there would be a Morning Sitting to-day, but that at 9 o'clock the Government would keep a House in order that the hon. Gentleman might be able to bring forward his important Motion. Why had not the right hon. Gentleman adhered to his bargain? It was simply because he knew exceedingly little about the Rules of the House. He had jumped up last night, in an autocratic manner, and tried to impose a new Rule upon the House. Indeed, he was only prevented by the intervention of Mr. Deputy Speaker; and then, when 12 o'clock was reached, the right hon. Gentleman proposed that the Under Secretary for Ireland (Salary) Bill should be put down for 2 o'clock to-day. Of course, that would have involved the sitting of the House at 2 o'clock; but when it was explained to the right hon. Gentleman that he was under a delusion, he said he presumed Mr. Deputy Speaker had a right to decide the matter by taking the voices of the House. He was told that there was no such right, and that he was entirely and absolutely in the wrong; and now the hon. Member for West Nottingham was positively to suffer because the right hon. Gentleman had adopted this course, and had, as it were, to be closured by the action of the Chair. Why did the right hon. Gentleman take this course to-day? It was because, as usual, he had blundered over the Business of the House. Why had the right hon. Gentleman forced on the Secretary for Ireland Bill yesterday? Was it of urgent and paramount importance that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for the Isle of Thanet (Colonel King-Harman) should receive a salary one day before another day? Most assuredly not. If the right hon. Gentleman had felt that the question of the defence of the Colonies was of paramount importance he might have brought it forward on Monday. The House thought that he intended to stand to his bargain, and some surprise was felt that he had not brought on that Bill. Hon. Members did not know that he had made up his mind to throw over the bargain he had entered into with the hon. Member for West Nottingham. In future they would really have to be most careful with the right hon. Gentleman. The right hon. Gentleman appeared to be very much like certain persons who, when they found themselves in financial difficulties, endeavoured to get the money out of somebody else. Notwithstanding his pledge to the contrary, he now came forward and endeavoured to take a day from private Members. He (Mr. Labouchere) objected to the whole system, and to the right hon. Gentleman taking days which ought to be devoted to private Members, when there was no absolute and paramount necessity for doing so, at the beginning of a Session. When the House passed the new Procedure Rules it was on the distinct understanding that only under exceptional circumstances would the days of private Members be taken. The right hon. Gentleman could not say that this was a case of exceptional urgency, because, if so, the Bill might have been brought forward yesterday. The right hon. Gentleman had given a specific pledge, and most assuredly it was not a question of importance and urgency that the Defences Bill should be taken today. Even on Friday last the right hon. Gentleman took no steps to keep a House, although it was understood that a House would be kept. When the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. W. E. Gladstone) sought in a previous Parliament to take away all the time of the House for one of the Coercion Bills, it was the Conservative Opposition who opposed the proposition and moved an Amendment. He presumed, therefore, that he should be in Order in moving an Amendment to the Resolution which had just been proposed by the right hon. Gentleman. He begged to move the Amendment of which he had given Notice.

Amendment proposed, To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "this House is not prepared to surrender this day to the Government, in view of the fact that the Government has already pledged itself to arrange to enable the Member for the West Division of Nottingham to bring on this evening the Motion that stands in his name, and Her Majesty's Ministers yesterday devoted the time at their disposal to a stage of the Parliamentary Under Secretary for Ireland Salary Bill, which time would otherwise have been at their disposal for the purposes for which they are now asking for the time of private Members."—(Mr. Labouchere.)

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

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

said, he had listened to the remarks of the hon. Member for West Nottingham (Mr. Broadhurst) and the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere), who accused him of blundering in regard to the conduct of the Business of the House. That was an allegation which the hon. Member had made before, and he was afraid it would not cease as long as he occupied his present position. He really was exceedingly sorry that it had been the duty of the Government to ask for the time of the House that evening for the question they were desirous of bringing forward. The hon. Member for West Nottingham protested that he had entered into an engagement with him. Certainly, he had entered into a provisional engagement to do all in his power to secure the consideration of the hon. Gentleman's Motion, and he had mentioned 2 o'clock to-day as the hour which he trusted the House would sit; but the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for North Longford (Mr. T. M. Healy), in the exercise of his right, had objected under the Standing Orders to the meeting of the House at 2 o'clock, and had thereby prevented him from keeping the engagement he had entered into. He had, therefore, felt it his duty to put down for 3 o'clock the question which he had intended to proceed with at 2 o'clock. The importance of this question was his answer to the hon. Member, and he was exceedingly sorry that he was prevented from carrying out the engagement. It was, however, the hon. and learned Member for North Longford, who, in the exercise of his undoubted right, had prevented him from carrying out his engagement. If, however, the discussion upon the Defences Bill was kept, as he hoped it might be, within reasonable limits, there would still be a considerable portion of the evening left for the consideration of the important question which the hon. Member for West Nottingham proposed to raise. The hon. Member said that the proceedings of the Government were without precedent. He was sure the hon. Gentleman would find that there were many precedents for the course he had been obliged to take under the pressure of Public Business in the exercise of his duty in putting down the Business for a Morning Sitting. The Government must be responsible for the conduct of Business in that House, and the House would see what a large amount of time had been devoted to a measure which they had hoped would have been soon disposed of—namely, the Bill for creating the Office of Permanent Under Secretary for Ireland.

MR. LABOUCHERE

For giving a salary, not the creation of the Office.

MR. W. H. SMITH

Hon. Gentlemen had interposed delay in the progress of the Bill. They were quite within their right in doing what they believed to be their bounden duty in submitting this Bill to the consideration of the House. In all the circumstances, he trusted the hon. Member for West Nottingham would feel that the course now proposed to be taken was one that had been forced upon him, and that he had no alternative whatever. He therefore hoped that the hon. Member would not trouble the House to divide, seeing that by so doing he would only defeat the object he had in view of delaying the time when the House would take up the question in which he himself took a personal interest.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT (Derby)

said, the House was getting quite used to the right hon. Gentleman telling them that the Government, and he in particular, were always actuated by an overwhelming sense of public duty. No doubt, that was the case; but when the right hon. Gentleman had applied exalted maxims of that kind to the provision of a salary for the Parliamentary Under Secretary for Ireland, and spoke of the duty he owed to the nation in respect of that salary, perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would excuse him for adding that when, with what seemed like infatuated obstinacy, he made that Bill the chief measure of the Government day after day and night after night, hon. Members would hardly moderate their views as to these exalted notions of the public interests and public duty. The right hon. Gentleman knew perfectly well that this was a Bill which was obnoxious to Members who sat on that side of the House. He knew that it was a measure calculated to provoke violent resistance on the part of the Representatives of the country for whom this Under Secretaryship was being created and salaried. He knew, further, that those who advocated the cause of public economy on the Opposition side of the House would necessarily and properly resist what they regarded as a rank and flagrant job; and, therefore, the right hon. Gentleman had to calculate upon a strong resistance from that side of the House, unless he had been very badly informed indeed by his own agents on the other side. He must have known that the Parliamentary Under Secretary Bill would not receive the support of a great number of hon. Gentlemen who were prepared to support him on almost every other occasion. He ought to have known that it would be opposed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Heneage), who last night withdrew the light of his countenance from the Government, and yet the Leader of the House pressed upon the House, as a measure of first rate national importance, to take precedence of the question of Imperial Defence, a measure upon which he escaped, like Job, by only the skin of his teeth. Without emulating the virtues of that patriarch, including the virtue of patience, the right hon. Gentleman came forward and told them that he was actuated by an overwhelming sense of public duty in introducing such a Bill, and making it the first Order of the Day, night after night. All he could say was that he entirely agreed with the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) in saying that this was a novel and unexampled method of conducting Public Business; and when, having so conducted Public Business, the right hon. Gentleman came forward, having wasted and abused the time of the Government on the nights appropriated to them, by giving them up to a measure which was not only frivolous but obnoxious to the exclusion of all others, the right hon. Gentleman asked them to set aside for urgent Business a question of interest and importance to the poorer classes of the community, like that which was advocated by the hon. Member for West Nottingham (Mr. Broadhurst), it seemed perfectly right that a protest should be made against such a method of conducting Public Business.

MR. CUNNINGHAME GRAHAM (Lanarkshire, N.W.)

said, he wished to enter an emphatic protest against the course the Government proposed to take in not allowing time for the discussion of one of the most important Motions brought forward in this generation. If the Government apprehended how the poor of England and the unemployed were looking towards the action to be taken for their benefit, they would have hesitated to refuse one evening for the discussion of the question.

MR. HENEAGE (Great Grimsby)

said, he rose to protest against the statement of the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury that there had been any obstruction or factious opposition to the Parliamenatry Under Secretary for Ireland Bill last night. He wished to remind the House of what the circumstances of the case were on Monday night. It was not until 20 minutes to 8 o'clock that he could rise to move his Amendment. Four speeches had been made before Mr. Deputy Speaker left the Chair for the usual interval during the dinner hour, the debate went on until 25 minutes past 10, and no Member of the Government rose to ask for a Division. The right hon. Gentleman then rose for the first time, and asked the House if the time had not arrived at which a Division ought to be taken. He (Mr. Heneage) was actually on the point of rising, at the suggestion of his right hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne (Mr. John Morley), to request other hon. Members who took an interest in the question to allow a Division to be taken. It was at that moment that the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury interposed, and if there had been obstruction it was solely attributive to the right hon. Gentleman who moved the closure. Other people had a character at stake in that House as well as the right hon. Gentleman; and, therefore, he could not allow the remarks which had been made to pass by unnoticed. The right hon. Gentleman could, at any time after half-past 9 o'clock, have appealed to the House to take a Division. He (Mr. Heneage) would, however, tell the right hon. Gentleman why he did not take that course. He refrained from taking a Division because he knew that he was in a minority, and although that fact was known to himself, much as he should have liked to have defeated the Bill, he was restrained from moving the closure, because the means by which he acquired his knowledge prevented him from taking advantage of it. He challenged the Government to deny that the debate was not allowed to be continued until the attendance of the supporters of the Government enabled them to take a Division.

MR. ILLINGWORTH (Bradford, W.)

said, he thought the House was entitled to look at the proposal of the Government from another aspect. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House was himself in a panic, and appeared to have lost his head. He was constantly making his blunders, and there was a fear that they would be continued in an aggravated manner as the Session proceeded. It was most desirable that the proposal of the Government for making provision for the National Defences should not be considered by the House in any sense as if there was a panic. The right hon. Gentleman could have done no more than he now proposed if war had been imminent or actually declared. He could only have declared to the House that there was not an hour to lose; that the country was in a defenceless and dangerous position; and that it was necessary immediately to put aside every other question in order to put the country in a condition of defence. He had no wish to refer to what had taken place in "another place;" but he thought the House must be of opinion that Her Majesty's Government did not appear to have any well-matured policy on military and naval expenditure, or upon any other question that went along with great questions of high policy. He believed the House would be acting wisely if they asked the Government to postpone this question until after the Whitsuntide Holidays, when probably most hon. Members would by that time have been able to study the interesting and instructive discussion which had just taken place in "another place." To come back to the manner in which Her Majesty's Government were putting forward the Public Business. They all knew that Her Majesty's Ministers had treated the question of the salary of the under Secretary for Ireland as if it were the most important question they had in hand. So much haste had been shown to push forward the Bill to provide a salary of £1,500 a-year for the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for the Isle of Thanet (Colonel King-Harman) that he (Mr. Illingworth) was disposed to think the Government were under some obligation of which the House was ignorant, and that the Bill was a sop thrown to a certain section of hon. Members on the other side of the House. Certainly the Government must be under some private undertaking of which the House had no knowledge, or otherwise it would be inconceivable that the time of the House should have been frittered away upon such a frivolous proposal. It was quite possible that the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury had pushed the hon. Member for West Nottingham (Mr. Broadhurst) into a corner because he did not like the terms of the Resolution which had been placed on the Paper; but there was ample justification for saying that the unemployed, both in the towns and the country, were of opinion that Parliament might occupy itself much more satisfactorily in considering the great social and economic problems of the day than it was in the habit of doing. When it was seen that such indecent haste was shown for the introduction of changes into our Army and Navy system, and that great social problems were thrust aside for them, he thought the country would see that the present Government was one almost entirely of profession, and had failed in their duty with regard to economy and in all other respects.

MR. J. ROWLANDS (Finsbury, E.)

said, he would ask the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury to reconsider his position with regard to the Motion of his hon. Friend. It was well known throughout the House that the Motion of the hon. Member for West Nottingham (Mr. Broadhurst) was the subject of great interest on the part of the public, for it dealt with the sad problems that were thrust upon them periodically when the cold weather came on. The supporters of the Motion had placed their views before the Ministry in the hope that they might be able to hold out some prospect of aid to the suffering masses. He could not help thinking that the conduct of the Government in postponing the Motion was due to a desire to shirk responsibility which would be thrown upon them if the Motion were carried. He could not congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on the crumb of comfort which he had offered to the hon. Member for West Nottingham when he said that Government might be able to come to his Motion in the course of the evening. That he thought was, indeed, adding insult to injury. Did the right hon. Gentleman think that a discussion of one or two hours would be sufficient to decide that for which the supporters of the Motion considered a whole day should be devoted? But, even if half or two-thirds of that time were taken, did the right hon. Gentleman believe that it would be possible for them to go into all the details of this gigantic problem? He thought the Imperial Defence Bill could wait its turn. There were some of them who believed that great home questions were as important as great foreign questions; that in the past too much money and time had been wasted on foreign affairs; and that in the future more of the time of the House should be devoted to the welfare of the masses. He hoped his hon. Friend the Member for West Nottingham would divide the House on this question, in order to show who were in favour of this all-important subject receiving proper attention at the hands of the Government.

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

said, he wished to make a few remarks in explanation of his action, which had been commented upon by the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury. As he (Mr. T. M. Healy) had stated last night, he had not the least objection whatever to the Government getting on with the National Defence Question, if they were really serious in their desire to do so; but what he objected to was their putting down as the first question the Parliamentary Under Secretary for Ireland (Salary) Bill—he objected to give £1,500 a-year to the right hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Thanet (Colonel King-Harman) for the reasons which had been over and over again expressed. He thought he might say, in the words of an American orator, that he was willing to give "millions for defence, but not a cent for tribute." The Government had put down this Bill on Monday before the Land Commission Bill, and they had done the same on previous days. The latter measure was one in which the Irish Members, it was needless to say, were greatly interested; but, as in the case of the little boys at Do the boys Hall, the Government were determined to make them take their treacle before breakfast. He thought that was an inverted mode of procedure. They had never been able to get a satisfactory answer from the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury with regard to the discussion of this measure, and they always found that if they obtained a Morning Sitting the right hon. Gentleman immediately dove-tailed to it another measure. What he wished to say to the right hon. Gentleman with reference to this conduct was that he did not get the support of his Colleagues; they might give him their countenance, but they did not give him their counsel. It seemed to him that many of them were very glad to see him floundering in this business. He could see last night the malicious pleasure which some of his Colleagues evinced in the fact that the right hon. Gentleman was not conducting Public Business in the manner in which they thought they could conduct it if only they enjoyed his place. That was the way in which the inferior Members of the Government unfortunately acted on occasions of this kind, bearing out the proverb that persons were able to bear with great equanimity the misfortunes of their friends. He thought the Government had taken a most unfortunate course with regard to the Under Secretary's Bill. They objected to that course, because the Government had already got a man for the post; and it was said that the Bill was not to create but to regulate the Office. But how was it to regulate the Office if the House was only asked to give the right hon. and gallant Gentleman £1,500 a-year? The effect of the opposition of Members on that side of the House would be that his salary would only date from the passing of the Bill; and if the right hon. and gallant Gentleman had managed to screw a large amount of rack-rents from his tenants, they had fined him, at any rate, to the extent of £100.

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

If we have interfered but little in this debate, it is because we are anxious to get to the next Order upon the Paper—namely, the Imperial Defence Bill, and because it did not seem necessary to answer some of the observations which have been made. It has been said that we wish to evade the important discussion which is to be inaugurated by the hon. Member for West Nottingham (Mr. Broadhurst). Hon. Members will bear in mind that we pledged ourselves to make a House for the hon. Member, and that but for the action taken by the hon. and learned Member for Longford (Mr. T. M. Healy) the Motion would have stood on the Paper for 9 o'clock to-night, and we should have proceeded at 9 o'clock to discuss that Motion. I think that any hon. Member who views the circumstances with fairness and impartiality in his mind will at once see that the suggestion that we wish to evade discussion is utterly absurd. The suggestion can only have been pressed into the debate in order to prejudice our case. An hon. Member has complained of the management of the Business of the House by the First Lord of the Treasury. Well, I am glad to be able to point to the results which have already been reached this Session. Business is more advanced than it has been at this time in many previous Sessions. [An hon. MEMBER: No thanks to you.] We have listened with great patience while much insult has been heaped upon us. Hon. Members opposite seem hardly able to keep silence when a defence of any Member of the Government is made on this side of the House—a defence which we are entitled to make, and one which I think any Gentleman who is accustomed to decent society would tolerate. The interruptions and laughter which proceed from hon. Members above and below the Gangway are sometimes such as to make right hon. Gentlemen and many hon. Gentlemen on the Benches opposite rather ashamed of the conduct of their friends. I was saying that we are content with the management of the Business of the House, and the country knows that this year we have, under the guidance of my right hon. Friend, been able to bring the Business of the country to a more advanced point than has been possible during many past Sessions. It, therefore, ill becomes hon. Members, under these circumstances, to cast blame on my right hon. Friend. It has been said that we are forcing on the Parliamentary Under Secretary Bill, and hon. Members opposite have expressed surprise that the word "Obstruction" should have fallen from the First Lord of the Treasury during his remarks about the opposition which that Bill had met with. But do hon. Members remember that yesterday, if I am not mistaken, was the seventh night of their opposition to this Bill? It is a Bill of two clauses only, and the principle involved is very small. That principle is one which has been generally accepted in practice by right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Opposition Bench. It is that a man is entitled to his hire, and right hon. Gentlemen opposite, by drawing their salaries when in Office, have shown their respect for that principle. The hon. and learned Member for Longford (Mr. T. M. Healy) said that we have got the man, and was not that enough? And another hon. Member has hinted that we must be under some private obligations to the right hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Thanet. No; we are not under a private obligation; but we are under an obligation of honour. If the right hon. and gallant Member is doing his part in the service of his country, he is as much entitled to his salary as any other Member of the Government, or as any right hon. Gentleman or any hon. Member opposite would be. We shall go through with the Bill, because we think this an obligation of honour. This is the reason why we consider it absolutely necessary. We, moreover, do not think it would be right for hon. Members opposite, after taking seven nights in discussing that Bill—["Oh!"]—well, at any rate, after discussing it on seven separate occasions—to occupy more of the time of Parliament, when there is but one clause left in the Bill, which might have been disposed of in an hour. Everything has been said about it that could have been said—["Hear, hear!"]—and the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. W. E. Gladstone) cheers that, and yet he, with others, is continually voting for more of the time of the House in order further to discuss this Bill. It would be well if we could accept that as the conduct of hon. Members opposite—that their object in discussing this Bill upon seven occasions is to drive the majority to do that which they had objected to on so many occasions—that it was to get the majority to surrender their will to the minority, and that that could be accomplished, provided they only spoke often enough, and interposed their opposition with sufficient frequency. It was not my intention to interfere in this debate; but I must protest once more against the injustice of Members in placing blame for this matter upon the First Lord of the Treasury, who has been able to advance the Business of the House in such a way as even to receive the compliments of right hon. Gentlemen opposite.

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

The Chancellor of the Exchequer has informed us that the Bill for granting a salary to the Parliamentary Under Secretary for Ireland, which has been the unfortunate cause of all these difficulties—for it is quite evident that the embarrassment in which we are placed and the censure passed on the First Lord of the Treasury is due to that—is pressed forward by the Government because it is a matter of honourable obligation to provide the salary, and because the labourer is worthy of his hire. If it is a matter of honourable obligation to provide this salary, why was it not provided last year? Last year it was made a matter of boasting by the Government that they were providing gratuitously for the valuable services of this right hon. and gallant Gentleman. You cannot take it both ways. You cannot make it a matter of boast and credit to yourselves that you are giving us the great advantage of such valuable services for nothing, and then plead that it is a matter of honourable obligation which makes you invade the rights of private Members to furnish a salary for that purpose. For my part, I am bound to say I do not recognize the argument in the other form in which it has been put by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He says you have enjoyed the benefit of these services, and therefore you ought to be ready to pay for them. I am not ready to pay for them, and I do not recognize the benefit of the services. I am not of opinion that they are, or have been, beneficial. I do not ask how far it is the fault of the right hon. Gentleman; but I am bound to say that, quite independent of the fact that this is the creation by Parliament of a totally unnecessary Office, it has been made the occasion for selecting for that Office a Gentleman whose appointment, in the unfortunate circumstances in which it stands, is no less than an insult to the people of Ireland. The Chancellor of the Exchequer says that you have objected to this again and again, whereas everything that had to be said could be said in the course of an hour. I have never heard anything of an obstructive or over-prolonged debate upon this Bill. I was not present—[Ministerial Cheers]—I was going to say that I was absent from the House during a portion of the evening when, as I understand, there was a prolonged debate—not prolonged by the opponents of the Bill, but by its supporters, from a dread of being placed in a minority. If, therefore, there is any foundation for the complaint of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, it is a complaint against his own side of the House. But when the Chancellor of the Exchequer objects to our repeating our objections to a Bill like this, I say this is the very purpose for which the House provides successive stages in a Bill, so that when a Bill is judged by a large portion of the House to be of a most objectionable character, both in principle and effect, that objection may be repeated at every stage of the Bill, and I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer may fully expect that he will see that objection repeated upon the stages of the Bill which yet remain; not, I hope, in obstruction to the general Business, but undoubtedly in such a manner as to draw the attention of the House more and more to the nature and character of a Bill which I think to be one of the most objectionable ever submitted to us upon the creation of an Office, with regard to which, if it lays an honourable obligation on the Government to promote it, it is an equally honourable obligation on the objectors to record their votes again and again in condemnation of it. I mean to support the Amendment of the hon. Member for Northampton, not simply on account of the objectionable character of the Bill, but on account of the fact that this Bill—being one of the simplest scope, and one affecting personal convenience—was last night most improperly preferred to other measures of the greatest importance concerning the national defences. That precedence having been given, it is proposed to inflict the penalty of that error—to call it by a mild name—upon my hon. Friend the Member for West Nottingham, and through my hon. Friend upon those vast masses of the labouring classes of this country who take an interest in his Motion alike legitimate and profound.

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

Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will allow me to correct an error into which he has fallen. He has told us that if there was Obstruction, the Obstruction was Conservative; that there were speeches made on our side with a view of delaying a Division until a majority were secure for the Government. I do not know where the right hon. Gentleman got his information from.

MR. W. E. GLADSTONE

The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Grimsby (Mr. Heneage) made the statement about an hour before.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

Wherever the right hon. Gentleman got his information from he was wrongly informed.

MR. HENEAGE

What I stated was this—that the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House never asked the House to come to a decision upon the Amendment of which I had charge until 25 minutes past 10, and that at any time between half-past 9 and half-past 10 he could have had a Division if he had asked for one, and I said that the reason he did not do so was very well known to himself—because he did not desire a Division at that time. But I did not say that speeches were made on the opposite side of the House. In that my right hon. Friend (Mr. W. E. Gladstone) was mistaken.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

Now we know exactly what Tory Obstruction means. It means that the closure was not put on one hour and a-half earlier than it was. The right hon. Member for Mid Lothian will now perceive that he gave a totally wrong version of the information which he received, because he distinctly stated that the Division was delayed by the speeches made on the Government side.

MR. T. P. O'CONNOR (Liverpool, Scotland)

The right hon. Gentleman said nothing of the kind.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

I think the right hon. Gentleman could, and would, contradict me if I were wrong. The only speech made on this side of the House was made by the hon. and learned Member for Stafford (Mr. Staveley Hill); and if that was made with a view of aiding the Government, my hon. and learned Friend disguised his friendship in a very singular manner, because he spoke against the Bill. Now, if the right hon. Member for Mid Lothian tells us that we boasted last Session that the Under Secretary was to take Office without salary, he will allow me, for the second time, to correct him. We never boasted anything of the kind. The condition of Public Business last Session was such that everyone who was in the House knows that it was absolutely impossible to ask Parliament to pass the Bill which is now before the House. The duty which was cast upon us then remains a duty, though we were unable to carry it through last Session. We were bound by every principle of public policy and honour to carry out that duty, and we mean to do so. The right hon. Gentleman has attacked my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who said that the labourer was worthy of his hire, and said—"We do not admit that we get any benefit from his services. We do not want his services. We do not think he ought to be paid for them." Well, Sir, my experience of Members of the Opposition is that they very seldom think that the Members of the Government are worth their salaries. If I had often been tempted to think that the right hon. Gentleman opposite was, when he was in power, considerably overpaid for any benefit conferred on the country, I never thought that was a sufficient reason to come down to the House and oppose a Vote for giving him his salary. The right hon. Gentleman worked hard and con- scientiously for what he thought was the interest of the country. I think he was mistaken—we all on this side of the House thought he was mistaken. But that did not make it a matter of public policy that the right hon. Gentleman should be deprived of his salary. I cannot admit that the criterion of merit laid down by the right hon. Gentleman that the action of Ministers must meet the approval of the Opposition Bench is one that will be accepted by the House. Then the right hon. Gentleman talked about our overriding the convenience of the House. Who is it that is overriding the convenience of the House? The right hon. Gentleman seems to think that, because he objects to a Bill, he has not only an unlimited right but an unlimited duty to discuss that Bill. If that principle is accepted you give up every argument against Obstruction once and for ever. The whole principle, as I understand the matter, in which in restoring to Parliament the right to manage its own Business is that when a question has once been adequately discussed and accepted by the majority, the minority shall accept the situation. It is a pure accident—a Parliamentary accident I may call it—that so many opportunities have been given for the discussion of this particular Bill. The Bill having been brought in by a Resolution of the House, undoubtedly opportunities have been given to hon. Members, which they have very seldom availed themselves of with regard to other Bills, of discussing the question on four or five separate stages; and every opportunity has been used for repeating over and over again the same stock arguments and the same violent personal invective. I deny the position taken up by the right hon. Gentleman opposite; I deny that the Opposition have a duty cast upon them of repeating and repeating and repeating indefinitely precisely the same speeches, precisely the same arguments, and precisely the same statements; and I deny, above all, that the Government are bound to regulate their policy in managing the Business of this House by the degree of Obstruction it may please the right hon. Gentleman to oppose to them. If you once admit that principle it is perfectly clear that the persons who will arrange the order of Business will not be the Government, who are re- sponsible for tat business, out the irresponsible Gentlemen of the Opposition, who think they have a right to speak as long and as often as they like on every question. I confess I think that if the right hon. Gentleman will only examine into the principles which underlie the speech he has just made to the House, he will see that they are absolutely subversive of the conduct of the whole of the Public Business of the House; and on that ground, if on no other, I object to the Amendment he supports.

MR. JOHN MORLEY (Newcastle-upon-Tyne)

I think the right hon. Gentleman is rather ungrateful to me when he says that the Members of the Opposition always deem Members of the Government unworthy of their salaries, because the right hon. Gentleman will remember that last night I vindicated the right of the Chief Secretary for Ireland to his salary. The right hon. Gentleman has attempted once more to vindicate the position taken up by the Government last year. I am not again going to read to the House the answers made to me last year by the First Lord of the Treasury and by the right hon. Gentleman himself; but when the right hon. Gentleman says that last year the Government had recognized it in their own minds as an obligation of honour to remunerate the Parliamentary Under Secretary, I cannot help recalling a speech made outside this House by the Under Secretary himself. On a certain day in April the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for the Isle of Thanet (Colonel King-Harman) made a speech to his constituents at Margate, in which "he thanked God he was not like Irish Members, who took their payments from the maidservants of New York." "Here am I," he said, "serving and going to serve my country for nothing." [Mr. T. M. HEALY: For 15 hours a day.] I do not want to lay stress upon that, because the right hon. and gallant Gentleman is not here to defend himself; but the Chief Secretary must know that that statement was made. Therefore, my right hon. Friend the Member for Mid Lothian was perfectly justified in saying that the country and the House last year understood, not only from Gentlemen on the Front Bench opposite, but from the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for the Isle of Thanet himself, that the Office was to be a gratuitous one. We were charged—and I never heard a more unjust charge made—by the First Lord of the Treasury last night with unnecessarily wasting the time of the House. As a matter of fact, I said to my right hon. Friend the Member for Grimsby—"Surely this has gone on long enough; why do not you get up and urge them not to go on any longer?" He was on the point of doing so when the First Lord of the Treasury got up and stopped the debate; and for a reason of his own which I did not then know—and now I know it I do not quite sympathize with it—my right hon. Friend did not press for a Division. It was notorious that it we had taken a Division before 10 o'clock we should have put the Government into a minority on this Bill, and I now wish that we had done it. We have heard a great deal as to the right of the majority, and I can understand if the majority had been 100 or 120 all that high language might have been used; but when a minority which comes within eight or nine of the majority prolongs a discussion, it is monstrous that that should be called "factious opposition." The right hon. Gentleman said that the discussion last night turned on points which had been argued repeatedly. I submit to him that several new points were made—as he himself will admit, if, as I hope, he has some candour still left—none of which could be said to have been over-argued or over-laboured, I can only tell the right hon. Gentleman that, as far as I am concerned, it is my full intention to argue out all the points the three clauses of the Bill contain, and I hope that before we come to the end of the Bill we shall find it possible to drive the Government a little closer than we drove them last night.

MR. CREMER (Shoreditch, Haggerston)

said, he hoped the hon. Member for West Nottingham (Mr. Broadhurst) would press his Amendment to a Division, and that it would be made clear to the country what they were dividing about They asked, on the Motion of the hon. Member for West Nottingham, to consider a question of the utmost importance to the masses of the people both in towns and in the country; a question which was inquired into and reported upon by a Royal Commission some three or four years ago, but on which no practical steps had been taken, and a question which was evidently as acute to-day as it was then. They were now asked by the Government to brush aside the important Motion of which the hon. Member had given Notice, in order to consider the advisability of spending nearly £1,000,000 on Colonial defence. He had yet to learn that there was any Colonial danger; and if there were any such danger to be apprehended, he could not conceive the wisdom of spending this £1,000,000 in fortifying the Australian Colonies. He and his hon. Friends wished to make it clear to their countrymen that night after night, during the present Session, had been devoted to the consideration of questions relating to the Army and Navy; but that not one night had been given to the consideration of the all-important subject which the hon. Member for West Nottingham invited the House to consider. This was the old story of the people asking for bread and receiving a stone. The people said—"We want better wages," and the Government offered to build more iron-clads, which proved that they were out of sympathy with the demands and wishes of the people; and the sooner that was made clear to the people's apprehension the better. The Government were asking the House to vote money which would lead the Colonies into a swaggering and defiant attitude; and he hoped when they had secured their mechanical majority they would tell the House where the danger existed, whence the foe was likely to come, and from what source of taxation this £1,000,000 was to be raised. The Government were not willing to give even one night of the Session to the consideration of the requirements of the people; while night after night they were frittering away the time of the House and the country on the consideration of questions which were not of the enormous and pressing importance attaching to that dealt with in the Motion of the hon. Member for West Nottingham.

MR. LABOUCHERE

rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Question, "That the Question be now put," put, and agreed to.

Question put accordingly, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

The House divided:—Ayes 290; Noes 187: Majority 103.

AYES.
Addison, J. E. W Cochrane-Baillie, hon. C. W. A. N.
Agg-Gardner, J. T.
Aird, J. Coddington, W.
Ambrose, W. Coghill, D. H.
Amherst, W. A. T. Collings, J.
Anstruther, Colonel R. H. L. Colomb, Capt. J. C. R.
Compton, F.
Anstruther, H. T. Cooke, C. W. R.
Ashmead-Bartlett, E. Corbett, A. C.
Baden-Powell, Sir G.S. Corry, Sir J. P.
Bailey, Sir J. R. Cotton, Capt. E. T. D.
Baird, J. G. A. Cranborne, Viscount
Balfour, rt. hon. A. J. Cross, H. S.
Barclay, J. W. Crossman, Gen. Sir W.
Baring, T. C. Cubitt, right hon. G.
Barnes, A. Currie, Sir D.
Barry, A. H. S. Curzon, Viscount
Bartley, G. C. T. Curzon, hon. G. N.
Barttelot, Sir W. B. Dalrymple, Sir C.
Bass, H. Darling, C. J.
Bates, Sir E. Davenport, H. T.
Baumann, A. A. Dawnay, Colonel hon. L. P.
Bazley-White, J.
Beach, right hon. Sir M. E. Hicks- De Lisle, E. J. L. M. P.
De Worms, Baron H.
Beach, W. W. B. Dimsdale, Baron R.
Beadel, W. J. Dixon, G.
Beckett, W. Dixon-Hartland, F. D.
Bentinck, rt. hn. G. C. Donkin, R. S.
Beresford, Lord C. W. de la Poer Dugdale, J. S.
Duncan, Colonel F.
Bethell, Commander G. R. Dyke, right hon. Sir W. H.
Biddulph, M. Ebrington, Viscount
Bigwood, J. Egerton, hon. A. J. F.
Blundell, Colonel H. B. H. Egerton, hon. A. de T.
Elliot, G. W.
Bolitho, T. B. Ewart, Sir W.
Bond, G. H. Eyre, Colonel H.
Bonsor, H. C. O. Feilden, Lt.-Gen. R. J.
Borthwick, Sir. A. Fergusson, right hon. Sir J.
Bridgeman, Col. hon. F. C.
Field, Admiral E.
Bristowe, T. L. Fielden, T.
Brodrick, hon. W. St. J. F. Finch, G. H.
Finlay, R. B.
Brookfield, A. M. Fisher, W. H.
Brooks, Sir W. C. Fitzgerald, R. U. P.
Brown, A. H. Fitzwilliam, hon. W. J. W.
Bruce, Lord H.
Burdett-Coutts, W. L. Ash.-B. Fitz-Wygram, Gen. Sir F. W.
Burghley, Lord Fletcher, Sir H.
Campbell, Sir A. Folkestone, right hon. Viscount
Campbell, J. A.
Campbell, R. F. F. Forwood, A. B.
Carmarthen, Marq. of Fowler, Sir R. N.
Cavendish, Lord E. Fraser, General C. C.
Chamberlain, rt. hn. J. Fry, L.
Chamberlain, R. Fulton, J. F.
Chaplin, right hon. H. Gardner, R. Richardson
Churchill, right hon. Lord R. H. S.
Gathorne-Hardy, hon. A. E.
Clarke, Sir E. G.
Gedge, S. Knowles, L.
Giles, A. Lambert, C.
Gilliat, J. S. Lawrance, J. C.
Godson, A. F. Lawrence, Sir J. J. T.
Goldsmid, Sir J. Lawrence, W. F.
Goldsworthy, Major General W. T. Lea, T.
Lechmere, Sir E. A. H.
Gorst, Sir J. E. Lees, E.
Goschen, rt. hon. G. J. Leighton, S.
Gray, C. W. Lethbridge, Sir R.
Green, Sir E. Lewisham, right hon. Viscount
Greene, E.
Grimston, Viscount Llewellyn, E. H.
Gunter, Colonel R. Lowther, hon. W.
Gurdon, R. T. Lubbock, Sir J.
Haldane, R. B. Lymington, Viscount
Hall, C. Macartney, W. G. E.
Halsey, T. F. Macdonald, rt. hon. J. H. A.
Hambro, Col. C. J. T.
Hamilton, right hon. Lord G. F. Mackintosh, C. F.
Maclean, F. W
Hamilton, Lord C. J. Maclean, J. M.
Hamilton, Lord E. Maclure, J. W.
Hamilton, Col. C. E. Madden, D. H.
Hamley, Gen. Sir E. B. Makins, Colonel W. T.
Hanbury, R. W. Malcolm, Col. J. W.
Hankey, F. A. Maskelyne, M. H. N. Story-
Hardcastle, E.
Hardcastle, F. Matthews, rt. hon. H.
Hartington, Marq. of Mattinson, M. W.
Hastings, G. W. Maxwell, Sir H. E.
Havelock-Allan, Sir H. M. Mayne, Adml. R. C.
Mildmay, F. B.
Heaton, J. H. Mills, hon. C. W.
Heneage, right hon. E. Milvain, T.
Herbert, hon. S. Morgan, hon. F.
Hervey, Lord F. Morrison, W.
Hill, right hon. Lord A. W. Moss, R.
Mount, W. G.
Hill, Colonel E. S. Mowbray, rt. hon. Sir J. R.
Hill, A. S.
Hoare, E. B. Mowbray, R. G. C.
Hoare, S. Mulholland, H. L.
Hobhouse, H. Muncaster, Lord
Hornby, W. H. Muntz, P. A.
Houldsworth, Sir W.H. Murdoch, C. T.
Howard, J. Noble, W.
Howorth, H. H. Norris, E. S.
Hozier, J. H. C. Northcote, hon. Sir H. S.
Hubbard, hon. E.
Hughes, Colonel E. Norton, R.
Hughes-Hallett, Col. F. C. O'Neill, hon. R. T.
Paget, Sir R. H.
Hulse, E. H. Parker, hon. F.
Hunt, F. S. Pelly, Sir L.
Hunter, Sir W. G. Penton, Captain F. T.
Isaacs, L. H. Plunket, rt. hon. D. R.
Isaacson, F. W. Powell, F. S.
Jackson, W. L. Price, Captain G. E.
James, rt. hon. Sir H. Puleston, Sir J. H.
Jardine, Sir R. Quilter, W. C.
Jarvis, A. W. Raikes, rt. hon. H. C.
Jennings, L. J. Rankin, J.
Kelly, J. R. Rasch, Major F. C.
Kennaway, Sir J. H. Reed, H. B.
Kenrick, W. Richardson, T.
Kenyon, hon. G. T. Ridley, Sir M. W.
Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. Ritchie, rt. hn. C. T.
Robertson, J. P. B.
Kerans, F. H. Robinson, B.
Kimber, H. Ross, A. H.
King, H. S. Rothschild, Baron F. J. de
Knightley, Sir R.
Russell, T. W. Theobald, J.
Salt, T. Thorburn, W.
Sandys, Lt.-Col. T. M. Townsend, F.
Saunderson, Col. E. J. Trotter, Col. H. J.
Sellar, A. C. Tyler, Sir H. W.
Selwin-Ibbetson, right hon. Sir H. J. Vincent, C. E. H.
Walsh, hon. A. H. J.
Selwyn, Captain C. W. Waring, Colonel T.
Seton-Karr, H. Watkin, Sir E. W.
Shaw-Stewart, M. H. Watson, J.
Sidebotham, J. W. Webster, R. G.
Sinclair, W. P. Wharton, J. L.
Smith, right hon. W. H. Whitley, E.
Whitmore, C. A.
Smith, A. Wilson, Sir S.
Spencer, J. E. Winn, hon. R.
Stanhope, rt. hon. E. Wodehouse, E. R.
Stanley, E. J. Wolmer, Viscount
Stephens, H. C Wood, N.
Stewart, M. J. Wortley, C. B. Stuart-
Stokes, G. G. Wright, H. S.
Swetenham, E. Young, C. E. B.
Sykes, C.
Talbot, J. G. TELLERS.
Taylor, F. Douglas, A. Akers-
Temple, Sir R. Walrond, Col. W. H.
NOES
Acland, A. H. D. Ellis, J.
Allison, R. A. Ellis, J. E.
Anderson, C. H. Ellis, T. E.
Asquith, H. H. Esslemont, P.
Atherley-Jones, L. Farquharson, Dr. R.
Austin, J. Fenwick, C.
Balfour, rt. hon. J. B. Ferguson, R.C. Munro-
Balfour, Sir G. Finucane, J.
Barran, J. Firth, J. F. B.
Biggar, J. G. Flower, C.
Bolton, J. C. Flynn, J. C.
Bradlaugh, C. Forster, Sir C.
Bright, Jacob Foster, Sir W. B.
Brown, A. L. Fowler, right hon. H. H.
Brunner, J. T.
Bryce, J. Fox, Dr. J. F.
Buchanan, T. R. Gane, J. L.
Buxton, S. C. Gardner, H.
Byrne, G. M. Gaskell, C. G. Milnes-
Cameron, C. Gladstone, right hon. W. E.
Cameron, J. M.
Campbell, Sir G. Gourley, E. T.
Campbell, H. Graham, R. C.
Campbell-Bannerman, right hon. H. Grey, Sir E.
Gully, W. C.
Carew, J. L. Harcourt, rt. hn. Sir W. G. V. V.
Causton, R. K.
Cavan, Earl of Harrington, E.
Channing, F. A. Hayden, L. P.
Childers, right hon. H. C. E. Hayne, C. Seale-
Healy, M.
Clark, Dr. G. B. Healy, T. M.
Cobb, H. P. Hingley, B.
Colman, J. J. Howell, G.
Conway, M. Hoyle, I.
Conybeare, C. A. V. Hunter, W. A.
Cossham, H. Illingworth, A.
Cozens-Hardy, H. H. Jacoby, J. A.
Craig, J. James, hon. W. H.
Crawford, D. Joicey, J.
Crawford, W. Jordan, J.
Cremer, W. R. Kay-Shuttleworth, rt. hon. Sir U. J.
Davies, W.
Dillwyn, L. L. Kenny, C. S.
Duff, R. W. Kilbride, D.
Lalor, R. Randell, D.
Lawson, Sir W. Rathbone, W.
Leahy, J. Reed, Sir E. J.
Leake, R. Reid, R. T.
Lefevre, right hon. G. J. S. Rendel, S.
Reynolds, W. J.
Lockwood, F. Richard, H.
Lyell, L. Roberts, J.
Mac Innes, M. Roe, T.
M'Arthur, A. Roscoe, Sir H. E.
M'Arthur, W. A. Rowlands, J.
M'Carthy, J. Rowlands, W. B.
M'Donald, P. Rowntree, J.
M'Donald, Dr. R. Samuelson, Sir B.
M'Ewan, W. Samuelson, G. B.
M'Kenna, Sir J. N. Schwann, C. E.
M'Lagan, P. Shaw, T.
M'Laren, W. S. B. Sheehan, J. D.
Marjoribanks, rt. hon. E. Simon, Sir J.
Smith, S.
Mayne, T. Spencer, hon. C. R.
Montagu, S. Stack, J.
Morgan, rt. hon. G. O. Stanhope, hon. P. J.
Morgan, O. V. Stansfeld, right hon. J.
Morley, rt. hon. J. Stevenson, F. S.
Morley, A. Stevenson, J. C.
Mundella, rt. hon. A. J. Stuart, J.
Sullivan, D.
Murphy, W. M. Sullivan, T. D.
Nolan, J. Summers, W.
O'Brien, P. J. Sutherland, A.
O'Connor, A. Swinburne, Sir J.
O'Connor, J. Tanner, C. K.
O'Connor, T. P. Thomas, A.
O'Doherty, J. E. Thomas, D. A.
O'Keeffe, F. A. Trevelyan, right hon. Sir G. O.
O'Kelly, J.
Palmer, Sir C. M. Vivian, Sir H. H.
Parker, C. S. Waddy, S. D.
Paulton, J. M. Wallace, R.
Pease, A. E. Warmington, C. M.
Pease, H. F. Watt, H.
Philipps, J. W. Wayman, T.
Pickard, B. Will, J. S.
Pickersgill, E. H. Williams, A. J.
Picton, J. A. Williamson, J.
Playfair, right hon. Sir L. Williamson, S.
Wilson, C. H.
Plowden, Sir W. C. Wilson, H. J.
Powell, W. R. H. Winterbotham, A. B.
Power, P. J. Woodhead, J.
Power, R. Wright, C.
Price, T. P.
Priestley, B. TELLERS,
Provand, A. D. Broadhurst, H.
Pugh, D. Labouchere, H.

Main Question put, and agreed to. Ordered, That the Order of the Day for the Committee on Imperial Defence [Expenses], have precedence this day of the Notices of Motion and other Orders of the Day.

Back to