BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE. (Hansard, 7 November 1893)

MR. J. LOWTHER (Kent, Thanet)
I desire to ask whether it is the intention of the Government to adhere to the undertaking given by the Prime Minister yesterday with reference to the Adjournment of the House as soon as the Government Business is concluded? I rarely heard an engagement more solemnly entered into before the face of the House of Commons than the pledge of the Prime Minister. It was grounded on the undertaking that the Autumn Sittings were to be solely devoted to forwarding Bills specified by the Government. Some conversation on the matter took place last night. I was not present, for, relying on the engagement entered into, I went home to bed. I understand that some remarks made by the Leader of the Opposition last night have been seized upon as implying that he would not support the Government in the course described by the Prime Minister. I do not believe that any such idea entered the head of my right hon. Friend. He indicated that there may be measures of a special and exceptional character which, under the circumstances, the House may desire to give precedence to; but that that should be construed as meaning that my right hon. Friend wishes to run counter to the decision arrived at by the House at large is unreasonable in the extreme. I would suggest that the Government should follow the example of 1882, when it was agreed that at the end of the Government Business the House should adjourn without Question put.

§ SIR W. HARCOURT
The right hon. Gentleman seems to have been better occupied at half-past 12 last night 447 when I endeavoured to explain the attitude of the Government in this matter. The Government have no interest in the matter except to consult the convenience of the House. They desire to he governed in this matter by the feeling of the great majority of the House. The Government thought it would be for the convenience of the House not to depart from the precedent of 1882, by going through the Orders of the Day while knowing perfectly well that every one of the Bills would be opposed. I am sure that my right hon. Friend opposite would sacrifice his slumbers to oppose these Bills if necessary; and having confidence in his energy and devotion, it would be a great mistake to assume that any Bill would be treated as non-contentious. The only other course was to move by Resolution that the Adjournment should take place without any Motion made. But the Government did not wish to waste time in proposing and discussing such a Motion. The House has now made an experiment to find how many unopposed Bills there are on the Order Paper, and it has had a useful object-lesson. I did not understand the Leader of the Opposition to oppose the principle laid down by the Government. The right hon. Gentleman suggested that the private Members' Bills should be classified. But the Government have no power to classify the private Members' Bills. The rights of private Members in this matter are general and universal, and it is not in the power of the Government to say that only certain measures must go on the Paper. Every Bill introduced by a private Member must go on the Paper. The whole matter is entirely in the hands of the House, and the Government desire not to exercise any pressure. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Bethnal Green, who spoke last night, imagined that the Government are in a conspiracy against private Members, or what I would rather call un- 448 official Members. That is not so. It is quite true that many excellent measures have been carried by unofficial Members, and that measures initiated by unofficial Members have afterwards become Government measures. But everyone knows that the Government have more power of pushing Bills through than any private Member could have; and, therefore, it is better for the House to concentrate its energies in the short time remaining on the two measures which can be carried into law, instead of making a display of energy in attempting to carry other measures which cannot be carried.

MR. J. BRYN ROBERTS (Carnarvonshire, Eifion)
I desire to point out, in reference to the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that the Government have no power to classify Bills; that by the Standing Orders Bills which have passed the Committee stage have precedence over those which have not got so far. There are two Bills of this class on the Orders—the Places of Worship (Sites) Bill and the Places of Worship (Enfranchisement) Bill—and I think an exception should be made in their regard. They deserve consideration from the Government, for they would have passed had not the Government taken all the time of the House, and the Prime Minister promised that they should not suffer on that account. I would suggest that the House should not adjourn until those Bills have been called.

§ MR. BRUNNER (Cheshire, Northwich)
I should like again to appeal for an exception to be made in the case of an arbitration Bill. The responsibility of not delaying such a measure is very great. In this matter, at any rate, we should sacrifice some of our convenience for the sake of our common humanity.