BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE. (Hansard, 6 November 1893)

§ * SIR A. ROLLIT (Islington, S.)
When the Prime Minister made his proposal earlier in the day that the House should adjourn after Government Business, there was no opportunity of discussing the propriety of that proposal; but it seems to me that on the Motion to adjourn unofficial Members may properly consider whether that proposition is one that ought to be acceded to by the House. Being here, Members may just as well be occupied in doing any work they can, and in considering any needed measures that are likely to pass without opposition. There are, for instance, Bills that might be referred to a Committee, and, as Committees sit in the day-time, it is incomprehensible to me that Committees are not now sitting to deal with such Bills. By a practice which has worked well progress has been made with non-contentious measures after midnight by a few minutes' conversation between Members interested, and there are Bills on the Paper with which progress may be made in this way. The first of these is a Bill to facilitate the acquirement of sites for public worship. That is, practically, an unopposed Bill. The next is a Bill for the enfranchisement of places of worship. It has been through a Committee, where I supported it, and yet it w ill be sacrificed by the arrangement which has been come to. There are other Bills in the names of private Members, including my own, proposing to establish Courts of Arbitration and Conciliation, and it has been proposed that they should be referred to a Committee. The Government are precluded from proceeding with their own Bill to establish a Board of Arbitration, which I have supported and very much regret; but it is possible to get the subject before a Committee with any of the other Bills. The whole trade of the country is paralysed by the strike, or lock-out, in the coal trade. For instance, and apart altogether from considerations of hardihip and suffering. In the week before last not one ton of coal was 329 exported from Hull, and that means an absence of return cargoes, inflicting injury on all other trades of the port and of the country. It is time, therefore, that some step should be taken to put an end, if possible, to this state of things. These are but illustrations of the good work that can be done in a few minutes without any great sacrifice of convenience. I therefore venture to oppose the Motion to adjourn that has been made from the Treasury Bench.

§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir W. HARCOURT,) Derby
I am anxious to state exactly the position of the Government in this matter. It is not for the convenience of the Government that the proposal referred to has been made. It is made for the convenience of the House; and certainly the Government have no object in preventing the progress of any of the measures named, some of which, I admit, are of great importance. The question is, whether it is possible that real progress can be made with any of these measures? As regards the Arbitration Bills, does the hon. Member really believe that any of the measures—either that of the Government or those of private Members—can be taken altogether as uncontentious and undisputed measures? I believe there is hardly one of them that is not likely to give rise to long discussion; and the Government cannot undertake from among these Bills to select those that can be treated as non-contentious. The Government cannot determine what measures are contentious and what are non-contentious. That being the case, what is the position of the House? All the Members who are interested in any of these measures must remain after midnight in order to look after them. That is really the ground upon which the Government make their proposal, because they feel that Members, most of whom are here at great inconvenience, should be put to as little more inconvenience as possible. This is the reason why in Autumn Sessions, when the Government asks for all the time of the House, it has always given an undertaking that the time of the House shall be devoted to particular measures, and to no other. The hon. Baronet must remember that the Government is not making this proposal as a new one. Indeed, the Rule was acted 330 upon all through September. The Government undertook every night to move the Adjournment of the House when the Government Business was done, and that was done without Debate. It really is for the House to determine whether it desires to sit after midnight in order to go through the other Orders of the Day and deal with the Bills of private Members during the time it will be sitting up to Christmas. Many of the Bills will certainly be opposed in the sense of being discussed at some length. The Government have no object in preventing the passage of any of these measures. But experience shows that great inconvenience is caused by keeping a great number of Bills upon the Paper under the circumstances in which the House is now sitting. With these observations I leave the matter to the decision of the House.

§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR
I think it necessary to say a few words on this matter, as it was in answer to a question put by a right hon. Friend that the Leader of the House to-day gave a pledge that none but Government Business should be taken after 12 o'clock. It is quite true that there are only 14 Orders of the Day on the Paper; but, if these Orders are to be dealt with, they will soon grow, by a natural and rapid process, to 30, or 40, or more. The result will therefore be that when real operative work is concluded at midnight the Speaker and the Clerks and Members interested in the Bills will all be kept up from midnight till near 1 o'clock; and that will be a serious aggravation of the already serious evils of an Autumn Session. If the House chooses to undertake this additional burden, it is possible some legislation may be passed; but it is certain that great inconvenience will be caused. For my part, I think it is too great a strain to put upon Members; but, if the House should determine to do it, I would suggest that a clear line of demarcation should be drawn in favour of Bills that have already received the assent of the House or that are practically unopposed, and that the time of the House should not be occupied with a mass of Bills which cannot be passed, the only result of which would be to impose perfectly unnecessary and fruitless labour upon an already overworked House. I would advise the House not to give too willing an ear to the promoters of these Bills, 331 because the only result would be not to pass the Bills, but to keep hon. Gentlemen here when they might be better employed.

§ MR. HOWELL (Bethnal Green, N.E.)
I oppose the Motion for Adjournment because my examination of the precedents satisfy me that in the course they are pursuing the Government are making a new departure.

§ SIR W. HARCOURT
I wish to remind the hon. Gentleman that on June 20, 1892, a Resolution was adopted by the House that for the remainder of the Session Mr. Speaker do adjourn the House at the close of Government Business without Question put.

§ MR. HOWELL
I can only say I tried to find a parallel for the present action of the Government, and failed to find it. I consider that private Members are being robbed of the few chances they have of passing Bills through the House. During last Session only two Bills, beyond Bills of a purely administrative character, were passed by the Government, while 23 Bills were passed by private Members. Instead of still further restricting private Members, I think that greater facilities should be given them to deal with right and rational legislative work. Private Members get very little assistance from the Government, no matter what Party is in or what Party is out. Both sides desire to snuff out the private Member, and make him a mere voting machine. I do not care to occupy the position of a mere voting machine for any Government, whatever that Government may be, and I warn this Government and succeeding Governments that if such a course is pursued they will find it no easy thing when they want to bring Members up to the mark for the mere purpose of registering their votes. It is contrary to the spirit of the Constitution that private Members should be gagged as they are now being gagged. I would remind the two Front Benches that during the last 25 or 30 years much of the legislation carried has been initiated not by Governments, but by private Members. On these grounds I most determinedly oppose the action of the Government in still further taking away the privileges of private Members.

§ SIR H. ROSCOE (Manchester, S.)
I wish to put in a plea for one small Bill. 332 I refer to the Isolation of Hospitals Bill—an entirely non-contentious measure which has come from the Lords, has been read a second time in the House of Commons, and might be passed in 10 minutes.

§ MR. LABOUCHERE (Northampton)
The convenience of Members of this House ought always to give place to the interests of the country. Otherwise, why are we here now? We are not here because we like it, but because we believe it is necessary for the welfare of the country that we should be here. The Chancellor of the Exchequer suggested that we are so fagged out by the length of the Session that we cannot possibly sit up till 1 o'clock. But as it has been necessary to have an Autumn Session, I cannot understand why we should not sit up till 1 o'clock as well as sit up till 12 o'clock. I consider that the Leader of the Opposition made a very reasonable suggestion when he proposed that private Members' Bills which have made certain progress should be put down for the present Sittings, and I hope that some effort will be made to give effect to that suggestion.

§ * MR. BRUNNER (Cheshire, Northwich)
I desire to thank the Leader of the Opposition for the extremely reasonable proposal he has made to the House, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will include the Arbitration Bills in his recommendation, for arbitration in the case of the terrible dispute in the country would meet with the approval of nine Members out of 10 of this House.

§ SIR W. HARCOURT
The suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition is deserving of all consideration, and the Government desire to enter into communication with gentlemen in all parts of the House in order that they may ascertain whether there are any Bills which can be treated in the manner suggested. It is evidently a matter which will require some consideration as to the Bills coming under the classification named; and if the Motion for Adjournment is agreed to, the communication I have mentioned will be entered into.