HC Deb 20 May 1890 vol 344 cc1413-31

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the proceedings on the Customs and Inland Revenue Bill have precedence of the other Orders of the Day and the Notices of Motion this evening and at every sitting for which it may be appointed."—(Mr. William Henry Smith.)

(2.52.) MR. J. ROWLANDS (Finsbury, E.)

I think we are entitled to complain of this very peculiar proceeding on the part of the First Lord of the Treasury. I do not profess to be so well acquainted with the procedure of this House as some other hon. Members; but I must say that I think it is somewhat extraordinary to find that the Government are desirous of taking up the whole time of the House for Government business before Whitsuntide. Only this afternoon we have gone through the farce of putting down our names for a Ballot, in order that we may be able in a Constitutional manner to ventilate grievances. Why does not the right hon. Gentleman propose that all this shall be done away with at once, so that we may be spared the trouble of coming down here on Tuesdays and Fridays in order to obtain a favourable place? The position we find ourselves in at this moment is all due to the gross bungling of Her Majesty's Government. Looking at the past records of Parliamentary Government I fail to find any instance in which an Administration has succeeded in getting the business of the country into such a tangled skein. They have had their Irish Land Purchase Bill read a second time, together with' the Tithes Bill, the Allotments Bill, and the Bill dealing with Registration; but when they had succeeded in getting those Bills advanced to a certain stage, with almost insane infatuation, they brought in their compensation scheme, knowing full well that it was bound to meet with the most strenuous opposition, and that it was one of the most contentious measures they could bring before the House. They have taken this course without solicitation either by the Temperance Party, or the publicans, or the general public, and with complete knowledge of the feeling which was created throughout the country when a similar course was projected two years ago, and the only way in which they propose to get out of the difficulty in which they find they have placed themselves is by proposing to sacrifice the whole of the time of private Members. Having obtained the first place to-night, I cannot abandon it without a serious protest, and certainly not without dividing the House. Personally, I have not been able to discover whether the Government really want the time of the House for this Bill, or simply to do a kindly action towards those who are assailed by the Motion I proposed to move this evening, dealing with the system of faggot voting which exists in London. There may, however, be another reason, because, when my Motion was disposed of, it would have been possible to have afforded facilities to the hon. and gallant Member for Woolwich (Colonel Hughes) to bring forward the Motion dealing with the dockyards which stands in his name—a Motion which the Government, by a piece of sharp practice, succeeded in staving off on Friday night. It is a singular fact that the three questions which have precedence for the evening sitting all affect the people of London, and yet Her Majesty's Government avail themselves of the opportunity for telling the inhabitants of this Metropolis, "No matter what your grievances are, we, by our automatic majority, will vote you down and take up the whole time of the House." If private Members are to have any rights at all, the conduct of the Government must be resented, and it is our duty to let the country know that if there ever was a, Government which succeeded in mismanaging its business it is the present. I intend to divide the House against the Resolution.

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

I sympathise very strongly with the remarks of my hon. Friend in regard to the business which stands on the Paper for to-night. Only the other night the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury, by a manœuvre, got rid of the Motion of one of his own supporters the hon. Member for Woolwich—with regard to the bad pay of men employed in the Public Service of the country. Only this morning I received a note from the hon. and gallant Member, in which he says, "My Motion as to the very low wages paid to labourers in the Government establishments in London is down for to-night, and will be divided upon. I shall feel obliged if you will extend to me the same kindness you did on Friday night in making and keeping a House." I have no doubt that my hon. Friends have re- ceived a similar letter, and there are very few who would not be in their place, in order to secure an opportunity of discussing the question. And now it appears that the hon. and gallant Gentleman is to be unfairly deprived of all opportunity of discussion by his own Government. I do not know whether I am in order in alluding to the scenes which kept us here until 4 o'clock this morning, but I wish to draw attention to the fact that the Government are pursuing a deliberate plan of throwing dust in the eyes of the nation. About 1 o'clock this morning, with an assumption of seriousness, they proposed, in the absence of the members of the Press, and surrounded by hon. Members who had been in attendance for nine or 10 hours, to begin the discussion of two of the most important clauses of the Budget Bill. We resisted that proposal, and I hold that we were justified in resisting it; but we offered to discuss the question adequately, as we thought the interests of our own constituents demanded. We made an offer of that kind to the Government over and over again, but offer after offer was refused, and it was only in sheer self-defence that we were obliged to shield ourselves behind the Forms of the House. I am glad to say that the course we pursued had the countenance and support of the able and impartial right hon. Gentleman who presides over the Committees of this House. His refusal to be a party to the gagging of Members drew upon him, I regret to say, something like an intentional insult, and a complete misapprehension of his motives. And what is the position of the Government? In the short recess which is about to take place if the First Lord of the Treasury makes a speech it will be to denounce the conduct of the Opposition as factious and obstructive. I entirely share the opinion of the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) that the present Ministry is a lawless, an immoral, and a profligate usurpation. They hold office in spite of the constant and unmistakeable condemnation of the constituencies, and under such circumstances I regard Her Majesty's Government as just as much an usurpation as if they were an oligarchy, who had established themselves by a coup d'etat. For my own part, I think the House are justified in refusing to grant a single penny of the public money to a Government which has ceased to represent the nation. Upon one or two occasions we have endeavoured to call the attention of the House and the country to some of the proceedings of the Government with regard to foreign questions.

*MR. SPEAKER

The hon. Member is now transgressing the limits of the Motion before the House.

MR. T. P. O'CONNOR

I will not pursue the subject further. I was only illustrating my argument that the Government have no right to complain of the action of the Opposition. As a matter of fact, the Government do not want this time, which properly belongs to private Members, seeing that the Budget Bill of 1885, which led to the defeat of the Government, did not reach a Second Reading until the 8th of June. The only reason for pressing forward the Bill now is to divert public attention from the mismanagement of the Government, by making an unjust and unfair attack upon the Opposition. It is part of a scheme to push through the House legislation against which the country has indignantly revolted.)

MR. PHILIPPS (Lanark, Mid

As the First Lord of the Treasury is now seeking to appropriate the whole of the time of the House, may I ask him if he proposes to afford facilities this Session for the discussion of the Eight Hours' Bill for Miners, seeing that early in the Session 154 Members of the House, representing all Parties, signed a requisition to him expressing a hope that time would be found for the discussion of the measure? As the right hon. Gentleman is now proposing to appropriate the time of private Members before Whitsuntide, and as he is certain to ask for further encroachments after Whitsuntide, I think the time has arrived for asking what his intentions are with regard to a measure in which the miners of the country are intensely interested, and in which those of Scotland are unanimous? I should also like to ask when the remaining Votes for the Navy are to be taken?

*MR. SPEAKER

The hon. Gentleman is not discussing the Motion before the House. Nor do the subjects to which he refers come within the period of time for which the right hon. Gentleman proposes to take the time of the House.

MR. PHILIPPS

I only wished to point out that one of the questions upon the Paper for to-night would raise a discussion as to the condition of labour in the Government establishments, and if such questions as this cannot be discussed to-night, I should like to know when they can be brought on?

(3.10.) MR. SEXTON

I should like to know upon what ground the First Lord of the Treasury considers himself entitled to present a Motion attacking the rights of private Members without offering a word of explanation. The onus lies upon the right hon. Gentleman of proving that the Motion is necessary, and that at this early period of the Session it is desirable to extinguish the rights which the hon. Member for East Fins-bury (Mr. J. Rowlands) and the hon. Member for Woolwich (Colonel Hughes) have succeeded in obtaining for the Motions which stand in their names. The House cannot forget that the hon. Member for Woolwich was on Friday night deprived of his right by something very like a trick. I strongly protest against a manœuvre by which the Government are seeking, for the second time within a week, to deprive the hon. Member, who is one of their own supporters, of an opportunity of bringing to the notice of the House the grievances of a, body of persons who are in the employment of the State. I should have thought that it was, at any rate, incumbent on the right hon. Gentleman to show that the Budget Bill is of such extreme urgency as to demand the appropriation of the time required. We have not yet reached the end of the i month of May, and we are entitled to inquire why it is necessary that the Budget Bill of 1890 should be passed earlier than in any previous year? I have been 10 years in the House of Commons, and certainly I have never known the business of the country to be in such a state, owing to the chronic incompetence and spurts of tyranny of the Government. I beg to move, as an Amendment to the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman, after the word "proceedings, "to insert the words" in Committee."

Amendment proposed, after the word "proceedings," to insert the words "in Committee."—(Mr. Sexton.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

(3.20.) MR. H. T. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSEN (Kent, Faversham)

I intend to support the Government, although representing a dockyard constituency. I regret the abandonment of the Motion of the hon. Member for Woolwich relating to the low rate of the wages of dockyard labourers; but I quite recognise that in view of the unparalleled obstruction which has been offered, Her Majesty's Government have taken the only course open to them. The hon. Member for Finsbury spoke of the farce of coming here to put down Motions for Tuesday and Friday. I do not agree that it is a farce; but, at the same time, I feel that we are sent here to do the business of the country, and not to discuss the fancies of private Members.

MR. BEAUFOY (Lambeth, Kennington)

I should like to point out that, although a large number of questions of the deepest interest to London constituencies have been placed upon the Paper, not a single opportunity has been afforded for bringing them before the House. Having the honour to represent a London constituency, I think it is high time for the Metropolitan Members to make a protest against the action of the Government in seeking to deprive them of the only opportunity they are likely to have of making some of their grievances known.

(3.25.) MR. DILLON (Mayo, E.)

I listened to the remarks of the hon. Member for Faversham (Mr. H. Knatch-bull-Hugessen), and I absolutely deny that there has been any obstruction whatever. If the business of the country is not in a satisfactory condition the Government are alone responsible for it. At the very earliest period of the Session the First Lord of the Treasury has come down and made a demand upon the time of the House of a most extraordinary character, but he has very prudently and wisely made no attempt to justify the demand he makes. The Government would have had their Budget Bill passed before now if they had refrained from introducing contentious clauses into it. As a matter of fact, they have introduced bills of a highly contentious character, which it would be utterly impossible to pass this Session, even if the Sittings were prolonged until Christmas. So far as the Irish Members are concerned, they know that the licensing proposals of the Government are regarded by their constituents with hate and detestation, and they feel that it is their duty to oppose them by every means in their power. The Government have tacked on to the ordinary business of the country propositions that are perfectly novel, and which raise great issues of policy upon which the constituencies have a right to pronounce an opinion. That, and that alone, is the real reason why we are making such little progress. If there has been obstruction of public business it has been the result of the unprecedented proceedings of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the First Lord of the Treasury. We have simply done our duty in opposing these proposals, and what I suggest to the Government is that they should now take out of this Budget Bill the clauses which introduce this new policy. If they do that, the Budget Bill will pass as quickly as the Forms of the House will permit; the Government will be able to make progress with Supply, and to clear away other business of the country, and then the remainder of the Session can be devoted to the interests of Irish landlords and English publicans. It is uncandid and unfair to seek to blind and deceive the country by endeavouring to lay the blame upon our shoulders of delaying or obstructing public business when, in reality, we are simply opposing a great and novel policy which the Government are seeking to introduce under the cloak of doing the ordinary business of the country. Supposing the Government succeed in carrying out this policy, I suggest that, for the convenience of Members, they should now get up and announce to the House what is their real programme of business for the remainder of the Session, and what they propose to throw over-board, and what they intend to carry. I would suggest, too, that in order that there should be a clear week's holiday, the House, if necessary, should sit on Saturday.

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

The hon. Member has told us that it is the bounden duty of the Opposition to resist the policy of the Government by every means in their power. [Mr. DILLON: The policy of the endowment of publicans.] If any reasons wore wanting why, as proposed by the Motion, special facilities should be given to the Government for carrying the Bill through, the hon. Member for East Mayo has himself supplied them. He has not called it obstruction, but he has admitted that the policy of the Government has been opposed by everything in the power of the Opposition—

MR. DILLON

I am afraid I must interrupt the right hon. Gentleman—

*MR. SPEAKER

Order, order!

MR. DILLON

That is absolutely false.

*MR. SPEAKER

Order! If the right hon. Gentleman does not give way he is in possession of the House, and has a right to continue his remarks.

MR. DILLON

It is customary for hon. Members to give way under such circumstances.

*MR. SPEAKER

It is entirely optional with the right hon. Gentleman whether he gives way.

MR. DILLON

It is customary.

*MR. SPEAKER

Order, order!

*MR. W. H. SMITH

I think the majority of the House will acquit me of being in the habit of making false accusations.

MR. DILLON

You said exactly the opposite of what I said.

*MR. SPEAKER

Order, order!

*MR. W. H. SMITH

I am content to take the judgment of the House as to whether I have put an unfair interpretation on the hon. Member's words. I made the Motion now before the House because it is imperative in the judgment of the Government, upon whom the responsibility rests, that it should be made. In the discussions which have taken place on the Bill there has been a considerable and a needless repetition of arguments. The hon. Member for East Mayo has invited the Government to take these particular clauses from the Bill. Recommendations of the same character have been made over and over again on the Opposition side of the House, and there surely must be some limit at which even the most reasonable recommendations must cease, if the majority of the House make it clear that those recommendations cannot be accepted. I am most anxious to carry on the business of the House so as to suit the convenience of private Members; but the legislation of the Government must be passed, and it is not the fault of the Government that by unduly protracting discussion private Members have deprived themselves of their opportunities. With regard to the Motion of the hon. Member for Woolwich, he will have an opportunity of making it on going into Supply. Both the Secretary of State for War and the First Lord of the Admiralty will give careful consideration to any matters brought before them by hon. Members with a view to remedy grievances. I will not now enter into the Programme of the Session, because the Motion before the House is an extremely limited one. If it becomes necessary for the Government to make proposals for a further extension of time, then the views of the Government with regard to the future progress of business may be properly put forward. On the' present occasion we simply ask the House to give precedence to a Bill which, in the opinion of Her Majesty's Government, ought to be passed without further delay, and as to which there has been very considerable and protracted discussion. I hope the House will now come to a decision on the question before it.

SIR W. HARCOURT (Derby)

There is no doubt the demand of the Government is a most unusual one at this period of the year. When such a demand is made it is the duty of Members of the House to examine the grounds upon which it is based. The greater part of this Bill, that which makes provision for the finances of the country, is unopposed. That could be passed today, and might have been passed last week. But the opposed part of the Bill has no relation to the Imperial finances, and is part of a scheme the discussion of which the Government have admitted ought to be postponed till after Whitsuntide. This is said to be a part of the business of the Government, but it formed no part of the recommendations in the Queen's Speech. It appeared all of a sudden as an accident and an incident, and as a secondary and independent part of the Budget of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I have heard astonish- merit expressed equally on both sides of the House at the madness which has inspired the Government to flash upon Parliament, encumbered as it is already by the immense demands of the Irish Land Purchase Bill and the Tithes Bill, this question of compensation to publicans. Sheridan is reported to have said that he had heard of a man breaking his head against a brick wall, but he had never heard of a man building a brick wall to break his head against it. Yet practically this is what has been done by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in making a proposal which is no part of his Budget, but is rather an unwholesome excrescence upon it. If the Government choose to fight out this question of compensation to the liquor interest I have no objection, if only they will give time to the country to form and pronounce an opinion upon it. The Opposition is ready to fight it out; but we will not have it closured. If the Government imagine the question is going to be disposed of on a side issue they are entirely mistaken. The proceedings of yesterday were inaugurated by a rescript from the Times, in following whose advice on a previous occasion the First Lord of the Treasury came to disaster. The Times is in the confidence of the Government, and the Government enjoys the friendship of the Times. That paper yesterday—a meeting of the Cabinet was held on Saturday—announced what was to be the policy of the Government on this measure and what treatment the Opposition was to expect. The words of the Times have been endorsed by the subsequent action of the Government. They have been advised to make the best possible use of their majority without the least regard to the hypocritical outcries of the minority, because "what the country believes in is success." That is the morality of the Government policy; but whilst it is true that "nothing succeeds like success," it is also true that nothing fails like failure. The Times says— If work is done the Opposition may go bout the country whining or howling about the arbitrary use of a majority or the stifling of discussion until they are hoarse. Nobody cares a straw though they are closured 10 times every night, nor will their complaints excite anything but amusement. I venture to denounce language of that kind addressed to the House of Com- mons as a brutal and insolent outrage. [Laughter.] The First Lord of the Treasury laughs at the idea of being guided by his old friend. The House can see that what the Times has said is an exposition of the policy of the Government. There is one sentence in which I can entirely concur:—"Sir W. Harcourtand his friends have not the least apprehension of being called to account for obstructing business." Later on the Times says:—"There are far too many speeches" [Ministerial cheers]—yes, Sir, I waited for that cheer—"far too many speeches from the Government Benches." Now, the Government have difficulties. "It may be a little difficult" says the Times, "to curb the loquacity of their supporters;" but it adds that this can be done if they are made to see that business is really to be advanced by their self-denial. I was glad to see that the first lesson in self-denial was learnt by Gentlemen opposite last night. There was an attempt to carry out the policy indicated in the Times, and it was followed by as humiliating a disaster as ever befel a Government when engaged in an un-Constitutional and unscrupulous attempt to override free discussion in the House of Commons. What I protest against is what took place last night when, in the most material part of a most important policy, the Government endeavoured to gag the House of Commons, and in the dead of night to pass measures which most materially affect the interests of every part of the United Kingdom, without discussion, or in a manner of which the country could have no notice. The First Lord of the Treasury was not in the House at 4 o'clock this morning, and perhaps he would like to know what happened. Perhaps hon. Gentlemen opposite would like to forget it; but it shall not be forgotten in the House or in the country. Well, what took place? There was a scene—

*MR. SPEAKER

Order, order! The right hon. Gentleman is not entitled to refer in detail to what took place in Committee last night, of which the House has no cognisance when I am in the Chair; but within a certain limit, which no doubt the right hon. Gentleman knows, he can allude to it in a general way.

SIR W. HARCOURT

I will follow your ruling, Sir. I was only about to say that certain incidents of the Sitting reminded me of the story of the battle of Waterloo. When we had been pounded all night, and had stood our ground, there appeared on the scene a foreign force, which the Napoleon of the night supposed to be Grouchy, but which turned out to be Blucher. Then the force disbanded, amid a general cry of "Sauve qui pent!" and the Napoleon fled. I hope that course will not be repeated by the Government. The Government, I understand, are determined to go on with their compensation scheme and with these clauses in the Budget Bill. Very well, I, for one, will not refuse them the time they ask even at the sacrifice of the interests of private Members. I regret that the interests of the people of London should be deliberately sacrificed in order to forward the compensation to publicans policy of the Government. I am very sorry that, by the brushing aside of the Motion of the hon. Member for Woolwich (Colonel Hughes), the interests of the working men, whose cause he has espoused, should be sacrificed. But, if the Government are determined to make this afterthought on their part the first and most prominent portion of their policy we are ready to meet them, and will grant the time necessary to discuss their proposals. The hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) has charged us on this Bench with weakness in our resistance to the Government. I will expose myself still further to the charge by giving the Government all the time they can get for the fair discussion of their policy. It ought to be, however, on the understanding that their proposals are not hastily forced through by the Closure. The difficulty in which the Government find themselves is due to the character of their measures, which are repugnant to the feeling of the nation -Bills for buying out Irish landlords, compensating English publicans and brewers, and aiding parsons in Wales. That is not a, popular programme, or one that recommends itself to the country. If, however, they choose to occupy the whole time of Parliament for the discussion of these particular topics we cannot help our- selves, and must meet them as best we can. In order that we may have ample time to discuss their policy, we will not oppose their present demand.

(4.4.) SIR WILFRID LAWSON (Cumberland, Cockermouth)

I do not wish to use any of the epithets which have been used against the Government to-day. They have received a severe castigation. They have been called lawless, immoral, and unprincipled, and the right hon. Gentleman has alluded to their having suffered a humiliating disaster. I wish to appeal to them in a friendly spirit. On one point the Government and myself are at present in cordial accord, and that is in the desire to promote temperance. They seldom make any speeches without saying that the earnest desire of their hearts is to promote some temperance measure. In fact, I look upon them now not so much as a Government as a great temperance league. It is not for me on this occasion to discuss their mode of promoting temperance, but I think they must admit that there are other people who have the interest of temperance at heart almost as much as Her Majesty's Government. To-morrow there is on the Paper a Bill which embraces the views of an enormous number of the people of this country in regard to what should be done towards diminishing the evils of the drink traffic, and I would ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he thinks it ought not to be discussed. It is a Bill based on three Resolutions of this House, and there are more people interested in it, I feel sure, than are interested in any other Bill before the House at the present time.

(4.6.) MR. LABOUCHERE (Northampton)

If I could hope that by giving the Government the time they ask for we could obtain from them time for adequate discussion, I should not have the slightest objection to granting them a certain amount of time, on the principle of giving them enough rope; but I am afraid the rope would be used to strangle us. They would take the time of private Members, and, instead of giving us full opportunities for discussing the compensation proposals, they would Closure us. I should, therefore, like some Member of the Government to be good enough to break that remarkable silence which has fallen upon them since they received the orders of the Times, and explain the intentions of the Government with regard to the future. The First Lord of the Treasury has put himself forward as a very able man of business. I shared in the opinion that he was an able man of business, but I own I have been disappointed. I think now that not only is the right hon. Gentleman not a good man of business, but that he does not understand the House of Commons. He seems to be under the impression that he should come down here as a sort of schoolmaster and treat us as a sort of school children. It is all bullying and bartering on the part of the right hon. Gentleman. He is constantly telling us if we do not do this or that we shall not have a holiday—as if we were children. That, Sir, is not the way to treat the House of Commons. We know we are absolute worms in the right hon. Gentleman's eyes, but by the course he has adopted he has induced us to turn and protest against his proceedings again and again. An hon. Gentleman opposite spoke of us as having been guilty of unparalleled obstruction. I must explain that the word obstruction is used in two senses—a good sense and a bad sense. Of course, all opposition is obstruction in a certain sense. The First Lord of the Treasury pointed to the hon. Member for Mayo (Mr. Dillon) as having announced an intention to obstruct, because he said he would delay and oppose. Why, every speech in opposition to the proposal of the Government naturally delays that proposal being-passed, and opposes it. In that sense, no doubt, we do obstruct, but, in an improper sense, we never obstruct in this House. I have heard this playing on the word obstruction time after time. The ins always complain of opposition as obstruction, whilst the outs maintain that it is legitimate opposition, although immediately the outs become the ins, their view of opposition changes, and they begin to charge their opponents with obstruction. If the present Government should go out, its Members would be found to act just as we are acting at this time. ["No, no."] Well, we shall see. On the Land Bill of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian, the Conservatives did not obstruct—God forbid that I should charge them with anything of the kind—but they took 38 days to consider the clauses in Committee. When we have occupied 38 days in Committee on a Bill of the First Lord of the Treasury, perhaps he may be justified in complaining of obstruction, but I deny that he has any ground for complaining of it now.

(4.12.) Mr. W. H. SMITH

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

*MR. SPEAKER

I would remind the House that the subject under discussion is the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for West Belfast to insert in the Motion after "proceedings" the words "in Committee." I do not think there is any disposition to unduly delay the decision on that Amendment.

(4.12.) MR. T. M. BLEALY (Longford, N.)

I think I may say, Sir, on behalf of my Colleagues, that you have fairly interpreted the feeling which prevails on this side of the House, and I thank you for allowing us to continue for a few moments longer the Debate raised by my hon. Friend. It is a remarkable thing that the First Lord of the Treasury has so little regard for the rights of private Members that, even at the moment he is depriving them of the time which the Rules of the House allow them for bringing on business, he endeavours to prevent them from expressing an opinion upon his action by the Closure. In spite of the violent interference of the First Lord of the Treasury, I will say that which I rose to say, namely, let us fall in with the proposed of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby. Let us agree to give the Government the whole time of the House, let us not take a Division against the present proposal of the right hon. Gentleman, on the understanding that now that he proposes to take private Members' time, he shall not, at least in the time he so takes, attempt to use the Closure. Let the Government take, in addition to their Morning Sitting, all the time of the House after 9 o'clock to-night, and let them have all to-morrow, in addition, but let private Members be protected in their own time from the violent measures of the First Lord of the Treasury. It will go forth to the country that the right hon. Gentleman has met the proposal of the Member for Derby by an attempt to apply the Closure; but, at any rate, let it also go forth that private Members are not to be closured during the time they surrender to the Government -that they are not to be strangled by their own rope, so to speak. I think the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby is a good one. We are entitled to an answer to it, and also on another matter. This Motion will give the Government an additional day and a half. Surely, therefore, hon. Members are entitled to have a day and a half added to the Whitsuntide holiday. I entirely repudiate any charge of obstruction. There is, indeed, no need for obstruction, as we are not now in the position we occupied in former times. We have nothing to gain and everything to lose by obstruction. The game of obstruction, if it ever was played in this House by private Members, is at an end. Ad we desire is to have a reasonable opportunity of expressing our views and of arguing questions with the Government.

*(4.15.) MR. W. H. SMITH

It is the intention of the Government to use the time of the House in a proper and reasonable way. In regard to the holidays, if the hon. Member will put a, question to me on Thursday on the subject, I hope I shall be in a position to give him an answer.

(4.16.) MR. SEXTON

If the suggestion of the right hon. Member for Derby, supported by my hon. and learned Friend, is accepted, we shall understand that the proceedings on this Bill only occupy the time usually at the disposal of private Members, and be free from the operation of the Closure Rule.

*(4.17.) MR. W. H. SMITH

I think the hon. Member must see that I cannot give any general pledge on that point. There is an expectation held out by the right hon. Gentleman himself that the proceedings in the Committee on this Bill shall terminate within a certain reasonable time. I say no more than this—that the Government will endeavour to conduct the Debates in a just and reasonable spirit.

(4.19.) SIR W. HARCOURT

I should like to explain that what I intended to say was, that if the Government receive a large accession of time from private Members, it will be unreasonable on their part to insist upon forcing on Debates at late hours of the night to the inconvenience of all parties in the House, and when it is impossible that the Debates could be reported. I say that that will be unreasonable, and I accept the statement just made by the right hon. Gentleman that he intends to act in a reasonable manner. Consequently, I understand that we are to consider ourselves safe from being called on to continue these discussions at an unreasonable time of the night. In these circumstances, I hope we need not go to a Division.

*(4.23.) MR. W. H. SMITH

It will be remembered that I alluded to the reasonable expectation held out by the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Members opposite that the Bill will pass through the Committee to-morrow.

(4.23.) SIR W. HARCOURT

I hope that reasonable expectation will be fulfilled, but I must point out to the right hon. Gentleman that, when, at the instance of the noble Lord the Member for Rossendale (the Marquess of Hartington), I made that offer to the Government last night, it was rejected by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I consider I should be at liberty to recede from that offer if I desired to do so. I do not desire it however. I hope that expectation will be fulfilled.

(4.24.) MR. ILLINGWORTH (Bradford, W.)

We, too, are to indulge in the expectation that we shall not be kept up to an unreasonable hour, and that we shall not have the Closure applied to us. Our position with respect to this Budget Bill is this. It has been a surprise to us from first to last. It was not in the Queen's Speech, and must have been the result of a sudden decision—either that, or the Government have kept it in their minds without saying anything about it. We have heard from the Government, over and over again, that they do not desire to compensate the publicans, but this is a measure to give compensation, and the conviction of the overwhelming majority of the people of this country is that if the Bill passes in its present form an enormous burden will be thrown upon the shoulders of the taxpayers through this compensation. Our constituents--and I can speak for my own—are most anxious that we should press the Government for an explanation of the scheme. We cannot do this with the fear of the Closure hanging over us.

(4.25.) MR. SEXTON

I understand it to be affirmed that the proceedings on the Bill are not to be pressed forward at an unreasonable hour of the night. Upon that understanding I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Main Question put.

(4.25.) The House divided: -Ayes 306; Noes 137.—(Div. List, No. 100.)

Ordered—That the proceedings on the Customs and Inland Revenue Bill have precedence of the other Orders of the Day and the Notices of Motion this evening and at every Sitting for which it may be appointed.

Back to