§ (3.50.) THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH, Strand, Westminster)In rising to move— 167
That, until Christmas, Government Business have priority over all Orders of the Day and Notices of Motion, and the provisions of Standing Order No. 11 be suspended,said: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I hope I may again press upon the House the grounds upon which I urge the Motion of which I have given notice, and I trust and believe that it will meet with the universal acceptance of the House. I believe it will also be for the convenience of the House itself. In addition to that, I may refer to the practice which has prevailed during the last ten years when there has been an Autumn Session. I find on reference that on no occasion on which the House has sat at this period of the year has it been customary for private Members to retain the undiminished exercise of those privileges to which they attach, and rightly attach, great value, notwithstanding the fact that they have frequently been unable to keep a House when their Bills have been brought on. It is a singular fact that I am not making any innovation on the practice of the House for the last ten years. In 1882 there was an Autumn Sitting, which was simply an adjournment of a previous Session, and in that year the Government of the day took possession of the whole time of the House until the questions submitted to it had been disposed of. In the year 1884 the House assembled for an Autumn Session, and the Government carried a Motion that the Bills which were put down for the consideration of the House on that occasion should take precedence of all other Notices of Motion and Orders of the Day on every day on which they were set down on the Paper. Again, in 1888, a similar practice prevailed. I am therefore fortified by the practice of the House, a practice which I believe is justified by its convenience, and we may by these means dispose of the business which has called us together at this inconvenient period of the year as rapidly as possible, consistently with due consideration of the important questions which will be submitted to the House. We hold that these questions are as important as any in regard to which the same privileges have been accorded and the same demand has been made on former occasions. We hold that the consideration of the very grave question of land 168 purchase in Ireland is one which deserves the most serious and undivided attention on the part of the House, and one the consideration of which ought not to be postponed for an indefinite period. There is also another consideration which I wish to impress on the House, and it is that if we are able—as I hope we shall be able—to make considerable progress with these measures on this occasion, we shall diminish the necessity for demanding from the House facilities which have been previously necessary. I base my recommendation to the House on the ground of greater convenience, and on the ground of the necessity which exists for facilities in order that the House may be able to deal properly and with full consideration with the grave questions before it. I trust I have said enough to recommend this Motion to the consideration of the House, and that it will find support on both sides of the House.
§ (3.55.) MR. LABOUCHERE (Northampton)May I ask whether it is proposed to take the Second Reading of the Tithe Bill or that of the Land Purchase Bill first?
§ MR. W. H. SMITHI have already stated that the Tithe Bill will be read a second time on Monday and the Land Bill on Tuesday. I think the hon. Member will see that it would be hardly possible to take the Second Reading of the Land Purchase Bill on Monday, considering the importance of it.
§
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That, until Christmas, Government Business have priority over all Orders of the Day and Notices of Motion, and the provisions of Standing Order No. 11 be suspended."—(Mr. W. H. Smith.)
§ (3.56.) MR. LABOUCHEREI see with pleasure that the right hon. Gentleman has, notwithstanding previous disappointments, come back among us as sanguine as ever. But really I do believe that if the right hon. Gentleman were to continue the leader of the House for a sufficient number of years he would do his very best to absolutely suppress the rights of private Members. The right hon. Gentleman has said that the course he has proposed is usual, but for my part I assert that it is entirely unprecedented. If a Session—it may be an Autumn 169 Session—is called for a specific purpose and is a separate Session, I can understand the Government taking the whole of the time of the House, but this is the beginning of the ordinary and normal Session, and it is fully understood that the only object of commencing so early on this occasion is that the House may be able to rise at an earlier period than usual next year. The right hon. Gentleman now comes down when the Autumn Session has commenced, and he at once asks that the Government shall take the whole time of the House. It is true that this course has been taken before with regard to a particular Bill, or one of the stages of an important Bill, which it was desirable to pass, but the right hon. Gentleman has not presented his Motion on any such grounds. He does not ask for the time of the House in order that we may pass this or that Bill, but he asks for the whole time of the House up to Christmas for the general business of the Government. I maintain that I am justified, therefore, in saying that the course proposed is unprecedented. It is difficult to satisfy the right hon. Gentleman. Seeing how quickly the Address has been disposed of this Session compared with former occasions, I think the right hon. Gentleman, instead of making a piteous appeal to us for the time of private Members, should have shown his gratitude for the attitude which has already been taken by the House this Session. We took compassion upon the right hon. Gentleman. [Laughter from the Ministerial Benches.] It seems that we can never satisfy hon. Gentlemen opposite. If we discuss the Address at any length they complain, and if we pass it after a Debate of an hour and a half they jeer at us. We have been asked repeatedly to give sufficient rope to the right hon. Gentleman, and as we have now done so we should expect that he would get up and say, "It is true that at the commencement of the Session we intended to take up the whole time of the House, but having regard to the fact that the debate on the Address only lasted for a few hours, I will not now move the Motion." We have heard a good deal about the great distress in the West of Ireland, and if the right hon. Gentleman had asked for the time of the House in order to pass a Bill to 170 relieve that great distress, and had shown due cause for such relief, undoubtedly Radical Members would not have opposed the measure. The right hon. Gentleman, however, wants all the time of the House in order to pass a Tithe Bill and a Land Purchase Bill before Christmas. Well, I just now asked the right hon. Gentleman which he was going to take first, because I did not believe he was going to take the Tithe Bill at once before the Irish Land Bill, considering how much we have heard about the necessities and requirements of Ireland. Why does lie take the Tithe Bill? The House will remember what occurred last Session. Perpetually when the right hon. Gentleman was explaining the course of business, the distinguished son of a distinguished Peer who is Prime Minister used to come down and say, "Well, but what about the Tithe Bill?" It would seem that this Tithe Bill is a special favourite of the Prime Minister's. The Prime Minister is a Churchman first and a statesman afterwards. The Prime Minister wants the Tithe Bill, and he has imposed his will on those unfortunate gentlemen who are bound to obey it, and insists that hon. Members are to be called away from their "happy homes" in order to pass this Bill, as if there were any reason for hot haste in giving further facilities to the clergy to obtain their tithes. Right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite may be the humble servants of the Prime Minister, but we are not. Incidentally, I may tell the right hon. Gentleman the leader of the House that never did he indulge a more sanguine anticipation than the notion that this Bill will be passed in one day. Why, the Welsh Members alone are pretty fair stayers in debate, and these gentlemen themselves are strong enough, without any interference by English Members, to devote, as they certainly ought, three days at least to explaining their views with regard to the Bill. As to the Land Purchase Bill, I look upon it as one of the grossest frauds ever perpetrated on the taxpayers. I regard it as a most unjust and improper thing that that Bill, after the assurances given by gentlemen opposite at the last election, should be passed in the present Parliament, and so far as I am concerned, 171 and others will act with me, I will not give facilities of any sort or kind for passing that Bill. The right hon. Gentleman says he hopes that the passing of this Resolution will render it unnecessary for him to ask for the time of private Members later on. I have no doubt he thinks that, and means what he says; but last Session the right hon. Gentleman assured the House that the Estimates should be brought on and discussed at an early period. The right hon. Gentleman found it impossible consistently with his duty to his God, his Queen, and his country, to fulfil that pledge, and he will find it equally impossible to fulfil the pledge he has given now, that by taking the time of the House at the beginning it will be unnecessary to make demands upon the privileges of private Members later in the Session. If the right hon. Gentleman brings on Vote on Account after Vote on Account we shall be bound, after what occurred last Session, to discuss every item for which the money is granted, whether the discussion takes six weeks or twelve months. Last Session I declined to discuss the Estimates. They were brought on at the end of the Session, or within a few days of the end of the Session, and passed without any sort of discussion, because I and others on this side of the House would not take part in the farce of discussing the Estimates in a day or two after most of the Members had left town. The right hon. Gentleman last Session took nearly the whole of the time of the House, and he muddled the time away. He brought forward three different Bills that knocked against each other in such a way that one Member of the Government obstructed another, the result being that nothing was done. This Session the right hon. Gentleman has begun by muddling, precisely as he did last Session. Parliament was called together on Tuesday; the last three days have been simply wasted, and to-day the time of the House is to be taken away from private Members, not even to discuss the important Tithe Bill or the important Land Bill, but a Tenancies Rating Bill and a Pollen Fisheries Bill—what a "pollen" is—whether a fish or a river or a method of fishing—I confess I do not know. Why is it that the right hon. Gentleman adopts this system 172 of taking away the time of private Members? I have always thought the right hon. Gentleman an exceedingly astute Member of the House. ["Hear, hear."] Yes, you agree with me because you know he always manages to take hold of the time of the House and prevent private Members bringing on Resolutions. Why does he do that? Because he knows that Resolutions might be brought forward from this side of the House on which it would be exceedingly difficult for Liberal Unionists to vote. They would find themselves in a difficulty between their duty to the Government and their pledges to their constituents. I believe, Sir, that our time is taken away, not for the benefit of the Government, but for the benefit of the Liberal Unionists. I shall go to a Division against the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman. I will make two suggestions to the right hon. Gentleman. The first is, that he will be kind enough not to treat Members of the House of Commons as schoolboys. The right hon. Gentleman gets up and says, "If you don't do this and that I shall shorten your holidays." The only reason why some Members on the Opposition side ask about holidays sometimes is for the sake of the right hon. Gentleman himself. We observe that he often looks a little fagged from his work, and we have thought a holiday would set him up; but as far as Radical Members are concerned, they are ready to sacrifice every holiday rather than sacrifice one inch of their principles. [Laughter.] Hon. Members opposite laugh. They do not understand making sacrifices for principle. I, however, am explaining our creed, not that of hon. Gentlemen opposite, and I can understand their ridiculing the idea of anyone being such fools as to do such a thing. The other suggestion I would offer to the right hon. Gentleman is that he should not waste time by addressing homilies to hon. Members on what they are doing. We are here to oppose Bills which we consider injurious. If our action met with the approval of the right hon. Gentleman, we should not have the approval either of our constituents or of our own consciences. However much we value the approval of the right hon. Gentleman, we cannot sacrifice the approval of our consciences for anything 173 of the sort. If, then, the right hon. Gentleman is so anxious not to waste the time of the House let him avoid casting his pearls before—[Laughter.] Yes, that is what hon. Gentlemen on the other side think of hon. Members who sit upon this side. I shall certainly go to a Division, and I hope many gentlemen sitting around me will register an immediate protest against this system, so favoured by the right hon. Gentleman, of taking the time of the House at the very beginning of the Session.
§ (4.14.) COLONEL NOLAN (Galway, N.)I would ask the First Lord of the Treasury to make an exception in the Motion in favour of the Seed Potatoes (Ireland) Bill.
§ MR. W. H. SMITHI can assure the hon. and gallant Member that I will fulfil the obligation I have come under to him.
MR. J. LOWTHER (Kent, Thanet)I do not like to give an absolutely silent vote on this subject, having regard to the fact that for many years past I have been one of those who have always entered a protest against the appropriation by the Government of time to the exclusion of the privileges of private Members, or rather the opportunities of non-official Members of the House. It is impossible for any one who has been any considerable time in the House not to observe that the feeling among Members of the House at large towards what are called private Members has been very materially modified. There was a time when Members of position on both sides who were agreed upon no other subject, made common cause whenever, in their judgment, the privileges of non-official Members were menaced. I have constantly taken part in such movements in order to guard against the union of the two Front Benches in numerous acts of appropriation of the time of the House. Now, the position which private Members occupy in the general estimation of the House has considerably changed of late. No one can mix with his brother Members without hearing very disparaging remarks in regard to the way in which the time of the House is utilised. We frequently hear private Members spoken of as pretentious windbags and faddists seeking to obtain their own ends at the public expense. I am not saying how 174 far these remarks may in any instances be justified, but the net result is that the means which private Members now have of exercising any influence whatever on the affairs of the House has been reduced almost to a nullity. I think the House before it agrees to this Motion ought to carefully consider the position which it occupies with regard to the time at its command. If this were a Motion made at the ordinary time of the commencement of the Session in February, I would say that it would be the duty of the House resolutely to decline, and insist on the right every individual Member has to discharge his public duty to his country and his constituents. But with regard to this specific Motion, we have met at an unusual time, and not for the discussion of ordinary business, but specific business known beforehand. I think that the right hon. Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. Gladstone) and other Members with a longer experience of Parliament than I have myself—though my own is, I regret to say, not inconsiderable—will bear me out when I say that it always has been the practice under the pressure of exceptional circumstances to modify the Standing Orders of the House, and to afford to the Government all the facilities the House has at its command. That has been notably the case towards the end of the Session—not only in the last decade, when changes have been made which I certainly regard as bad precedents—but in former years; but then the practice was to insist upon knowing to what purpose the time was to be given up. As I understand my right hon. Friend, he does not ask for the time of the House to go into any general scheme of legislation, but to bring before the House certain specific proposals, and those proposals alone. The hon. Member for Northampton referred to the fact that the early meeting of Parliament has been connected with an earlier relinquishment of our labours. I must also remind the hon. Member that the work now down for our consideration is essentially work which was to have been done last autumn. Therefore, understanding, as I do, that the Government have pledged themselves only to avail themselves of this concession for specific purposes, and that they do not ask non-official Members to abdicate their 175 rights in the ordinary period of the Session, I for one shall not oppose the Motion.
§ MR. LABOUCHEREWill the right hon. Gentleman guarantee that the Government will not ask for the time of private Members in the ordinary period of the Session?
MR. J. LOWTHERThe word of my right hon. Friend is good enough for me, and I venture to say likewise for the hon. Gentleman and for the House at large. Upon this understanding, namely, that in the ordinary period of the Session private Members will not be asked to abdicate their rights, I for one shall be prepared to support the Motion of my right hon. Friend.
§ ٭(4.25.) SIR JULIAN GOLDSMID (St. Pancras, S.)I hold that we have arrived at a period when the time of Parliament ought to be altogether rearranged. At present the time usually allotted to the Government is totally insufficient. I do not think this remark applies to this Government only, but it applies equally to any Government whatever. Therefore I say that there must be a re-arrangement, so that the Government may have more time at their disposal. I would suggest that the time has arrived when we ought to give up Tuesday altogether as a private Members' night. It is a night which is generally appropriated to mere abstract resolutions which do not result in legislation. Our Sittings on Wednesday are in a different position. They have been productive of a considerable number of useful measures introduced in the shape of Bills by private Members. I would therefore suggest that Wednesday should be 'preserved as a private Members' day; but seeing that there are more counts-out on Tuesday than upon any other day, I think that the Government should have that day as well as Mondays and Thursdays. If this course were taken, I believe that it would not be necessary in future to propose such Motions as that now before the House.
§ (4.27.) MR. W. E. GLADSTONE (Edinburgh, Mid Lothian)My hon. Friend who has just sat down stated that he thinks that the Government have now more to do than they had at other times, and that there ought to be an entire re-arrangement of Parliamentary time with a view to a different distribution between 176 the Government and non-official Members, as they have been well called by the right hon. Gentleman opposite. That may be so or it may not be so. I offer no opinion on the subject, but in the earliest year that I can recollect four Bills of vast importance were passed by the Government, and I have known certainly within the last five years no approach to Parliamentary labour of that kind. There was a coercion Bill for Ireland of great labour and difficulty in that year—1833. It was followed by a Church Temporalities Bill, reconstituting a most complicated subject, and then came a vast measure, the West India Emancipation Bill, and after that the re-adjustment of the Bank Charter, and also, I think, an Indian Bank Charter; and that was all done under the present arrangement of Government time. But that is not the question before us. We have apparently a limited limitation, but with respect to the limitation I wish to have a clearer understanding than we have yet arrived at. The right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. J. Lowther) made a declaration at the close of his speech that he considered the Government pledged by this Motion not to ask after Christmas for the time of non-official Members. I observed no sign whatever of assent on the part of the First Lord of the Treasury to show that he considered it to be a pledge on the part of the Government, and undoubtedly we are entitled to some much clearer indication of the intentions of the Government as to what is to take place after Christmas than what we have yet obtained. For my part, I feel no disposition to go to issue with the Government upon the question of limited extent, and I believe such would be the general feeling of the House; but what I have observed is that a small demand is after a week or ten days followed by a greater demand; that again is followed by a demand larger still, and the upshot is that the time of non-official Members is almost entirely absorbed. We want, therefore, to know what are the general intentions of the Government with respect to the time of non-official Members, because I must point out that with regard to the specific purpose of his Motion it is impossible to have a weaker position than that of the right hon. Gentleman. In the first place, his Motion does not corre- 177 spond with his notice. His notice was totally different from the Motion. His notice was that the time of the House should be at the disposal of the Government for the Irish Land Purchase Bill, the Tithe Bill, and Bills connected with Irish distress, but his Motion is that the time of the House should be given to the Government up to Christmas for all Government business whatever. They are in total contradiction to one another, and I would observe that no notice whatever is better than a misleading and erroneous one. But the right hon. Gentleman has quoted precedents. There is no precedent whatever touching such a Motion as this. He has precedents to show that on particular occasions after the commencement of the Session—for what may be done at the end of the Session has nothing whatever to do with it—demands have been made on the House for certain important measures. But now this is not a demand for this or that important measure, but a demand for Government business generally. What is worst of all is that his Motion is in direct contradiction of his own notice. The right hon. Gentleman spoke three days ago in absolute contradiction to the terms of the Motion which he now makes. I ventured in the course of the Debate on the Address to pass a eulogy, as I sometimes do, on the the wisdom of our ancestors, and the right hon. Gentleman responded to me, not only with assent and sympathy, but with fervour. He was all for the wisdom of our ancestors, but he asked, "What was our condition?" The enormous demands for the discussion of this, that, or the other subject drive the Government to such a point that we have no option except to make these requests to the House. The right hon. Gentleman added—
But let the House give us some indication of a disposition to assist the passage of Government measures, and we shall not then have occasion to make these requests.What is the first effect of that declaration of the right hon. Gentleman? We waived the Debate on the Address, and in the place of its occupying a succession of nights got through it in five or six hours. And then, again, if that was not enough to put the right hon. Gentleman out of court he produced the Tithe Bill without any explanation 178 from the Minister in charge of it, and, although it is a contested measure, the stage was passed without debate. Certainly, nobody can complain of the debate on the Irish Land Purchase Bill. Indeed, it seems to me that in his laudable anxiety to avoid trespassing upon the time of the House, the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary was too short in his exposition of it. Brevis esse laboro, obscurus fio. The right hon. Gentleman left me in utter doubt and be wilderment as to some of its most important points. Undoubtedly the statement of the right hon. Gentleman on Tuesday was an intimation that a disposition on the part of the House to despatch business would dispense with the necessity for making these demands. Still, the present demand is a limited one, and I do not wish to quarrel with the Government about trifles. The right hon. Gentleman is, above all things, a temperate man in his language, but in conjunction with this gentle and temperate language there is a character about his measures—I use the word in no offensive sense—of a certain truculence. I must say that I have so much respect for the speech which the right hon. Gentleman made on Tuesday night that I should feel that I was insulting him with respect to that speech if I were to support his Motion as it stands without some further declaration, and I look for, from him, in his reply, a frank acceptance of the demands made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Isle of Thanet Division for the satisfaction of non-official Members that they are not, after Christmas, to be deprived of their fair share of the time of the House.
§ ٭(4.35.) MR. W. H. SMITHI can only reply to the right hon. Gentleman by the indulgence of the House, which I hope will not be refused mo. The right hon. Gentleman takes exception to the form of my Motion by saying that it differs materially from the notice given on Tuesday night. I have always been under the impression that when a Minister of the Crown makes an engagement with the House, it is one which the House will adopt, and I hope the House will accept my assurance that it is not our intention to go beyond the engagement I made with the House on Tuesday. We ask for the time of the House in order that we may proceed with the 179 stages indicated of the Tithe Bill and the Land Purchase Bill which are now before the House, and to carry further, as we think it will be necessary for us to do, measures relating to the distress in Ireland, and if any other measures are to be included, it will only be such measures of urgency as may arise without our knowledge at this moment. It is not necessary for me to alter the terms of the Motion in order to express precisely the engagement I have now entered into. As to the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Thanet, I said the other day that I hoped it would not be necessary to ask for further indulgence of the House if the House showed its appreciation of the necessity for proceeding rapidly to business. I fully acknowledge that the House has up to now proceeded rapidly with public business, but I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman's experience of public business will show him that I should not be justified, acting on the experience of three days, in entering into a rash engagement not to ask on the part of the Government for further facilities after the month of December. I repeat that if the House will, with "the wisdom of our ancestors," consider these measures of the Government with reasonable criticism and with a due regard to the time of private Members, not less than the time of the House itself, I shall be more glad than anyone if I am able to refrain from asking for further facilities for the transaction of public business than those which the Rules of the House already give us. We have a strong desire that every non-official Member of the House should have every facility for bringing forward the questions which they deem to be important; but I feel that it would be rash to make the limitation which the right hon. Gentleman opposite desires. I shall be most glad to afford ample time for the Motions of non-official Members, but that is a matter rather for the House itself than for the Government. All I hope is that hon. Members, copying the wisdom of our ancestors, will return to the practice of the past.
§ (4.42.) MR. WADDY (Lincolnshire, Brigg)The objection which I feel compelled to make to this Motion goes a great deal deeper and further than the objections which have been made 180 already. I desire to enter my protest against any and every measure that would tend to keep in Office a Government who, I believe, are utterly unfitted for the duties which they have to perform, and who will be swept from power at the next General Election. [Laughter from the Ministerial Benches] We hear a good deal of that kind of laughter at present from the other side of the House; but it is only laughter that is intended to keep their courage up. If there is any doubt as to the truth of what I say, it could be easily solved if they would only have the courage to try a General Election. Believing, as I do, and convinced as I am, and, as I believe, that Members opposite are in their innermost selves, that if we had a General Election they would undoubtedly cease to abuse any longer the power they obtained under a misapprehension some years ago, I shall oppose any measure that is intended to keep them in places for which I deem them to be unfit. With regard to the suggestion that the Government ought to appropriate more of the time of the House, it should be remembered what has been the history of all great legislative changes. First of all the country has been awakened, and then a principle has been embodied in a Resolution by a private Member, and on the Resolution being carried the Government has prepared a Bill. One stage of that which has been up to this time the invariable progress of reform, is now entirely taken away by the course being adopted by the Government; it is being taken away by those who have been, as we believe, the opponents of all reform, and it is being taken away in a manner which is very effective, but which is extremely unconstitutional Last Session when they got any measure into such a condition that they found they were going to be beaten, instead of standing by those principles they had maintained to be right, they ran away; they held on to their offices because they knew perfectly well that in the country they would be beaten. They now want to take all the time of the House in order to prevent us moving any Resolutions which may be inconvenient for them to deal with. If we had the principle established of one man one vote, I should like to know what would become of the Dissentient Liberals or Liberal Unionists, 181 or whatever they call themselves. It is because the Government know that if we had the opportunity of moving Resolutions of that kind, they and their friends would necessarily be put in such a position of difficulty, and of absolute impossibility of official life, that they now propose to take the whole time of the House. I mean to oppose throughout the whole of this Session every measure which has the tendency to which I have referred, every measure which prevents us getting to the country, every measure which enables the Government any longer to hold seats which we know they would not hold if the country had the power of speech. In conclusion, I desire to point out that the pledge for which they were asked by our leader has been positively refused by the Government.
§ (4.48.) MR. ILLINGWORTH (Bradford, W.)The right hon. Gentleman the leader of the House has, by the favour of the House, made a second speech, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. J. Lowther) is satisfied with the declarations of his right hon. Friend. I am always disposed to trust the right hon. Gentleman when he makes a statement in his private capacity, but, unfortunately, in his official capacity he is so affected with the responsibilities of office, that he continually runs back in the promises he gives to the House. What is our position? Why are we meeting here at this inclement time of the year? Nothing has been said by the First Lord of the Treasury or by any of the Members of the Government to show that there is anything special for which we have been called here. In reality, we are met together to pick up the broken threads of the last Session of Parliament. Why should we private Members be punished for the mismanagement of business by the Government during the last Session of Parliament? If the Tithe Bill was an urgent Bill last Session, if the Irish Land Purchase Bill was a Bill of most pressing necessity, why was a great part of the time of the House occupied with that ridiculous piece of business, the putting on the Records of the House the results of the Parnell Commission? But the Government started another horse, Compensation for the Brewers. That was the pièce de rèsistance with which we were favoured 182 last Session. In fact, the business, which in the Speech from the Throne the Government declared pressing, was thrown aside, and new and unexpected measures introduced. The House is called together at this very inopportune time to try and make up for the great, mismanagement of the business of the House by Her Majesty's Government. We have not even the poor consolation that by meeting for a month in 1890 the privileges of non-official Members are to be preserved to them in 1891. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Isle of Thanet is a great stickler for constitutional principles and methods; but he cannot deny that there have been more inroads into, and more breaking down of the old securities with regard to the constitutional practice of this House under the present Government than under any Radical Government. There have been rumours that the difficulties and labours of the leader of the House were making some inroad on his health, and that it might be necessary for him to retire. I hope that time is far distant. We have a great regard for the private character and private virtues of the right hon. Gentleman, but as leader of the House of Commons he appears to be so singularly afflicted by a sense of responsibility as to think himself justified in upsetting all the old methods by which business has been carried on. Should it be deemed right that the right hon. Gentleman should be translated to another place, I know no title that would better befit him than Lord Topsy-Turvy.
§ (4.53.) DR. TANNER (Cork Co., Mid)I shall oppose the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman, and for the following reason, if there were no other. There are two Irish Bills before the House—the Railways Bill, which is proposed in connection with the relief of distress in Ireland, which has been stated by the Chief Secretary to be very urgent, and the Land Bill. The Railways Bill is to be taken second. If the distress is to be relieved, why not place the Railways Bill first? The Government are acting in a false manner. If they really want time, why did they not assemble earlier—a fortnight or three weeks earlier? The Government delayed the meeting of Parliament in order to allow gentlemen opposite to enjoy their hunting—please God the 183 country will hunt them before long! Because he has allowed the gentlemen opposite the opportunity their wealth affords them, the right hon. Gentleman now asks for the whole time of the House. The right hon. Gentleman wishes by his Motion to remedy the lamentable and discreditable mistake which a discredited Government has made in connection with this Session of Parliament. I must remonstrate with the right hon. Gentleman. I am always sorry to see him placed in a false position. I always sympathise with him when I hear him appeal to the House and the country, but I do think he should have endeavoured to bring about a reformation in the Cabinet, so as to prevent evils attendant upon want of discretion. In the conduct of Irish business the Government have broken their promise, and, for my own part, I shall have much pleasure in voting against this proposition.
§ (4.57.) SIR J. SWINBURNE (Staffordshire, Lichfield)When we know that distress exists in Ireland, and that thousands of people are being turned out of their homes wholesale to starve, we are asked to give up the time of the House, not for the discussion of Irish matters, but, forsooth, for the consideration of a Tithe Bill which we know will be debated by the Welsh Members in a most discursive manner. This Bill is a Parliamentary bribe given to the Church of England for supporting the present Government, and in the hope of future favours at the next General Election. [Cries of "Divide!"] It is all very well for hon. Gentlemen opposite to cry ''Divide," but I should have liked some of them to have seen what I have witnessed in Ireland during the last few days. I have seen hundreds of women and children turned out from their homes on to the roadside to starve. And yet we are asked not to attempt to give relief to these people at once, but to pass a Bill which no one wants but the Prime Minister—a Bill of a most contentious character, which I, for one, being a tithe-owner, and also a tithe-payer, consider a most dishonest Bill. I do not think anything more indecent could be proposed even by the present Government. I hope that hon. Members on this side of the House will not allow this Debate to end without the 184 matter being thoroughly discussed, so that the Government may learn once more that it does not expedite business by making proposals of this description.
§ (5.0.) The House divided:—Ayes 223; Noes 173.—(Div. List, No. 2.)