§ THE CHANCELLOR or THE EXCHEQUER (Sir W. HARCOURT,) DerbyA promise was given recently that a statement should be made on behalf of the Government with regard to the future progress of business. I think it would be for the convenience of hon. Members if I were to mention, in the first instance, that the Army Estimates will be taken on Monday next.
§ MR. HANBURY (Preston)The War Office Votes first?
§ SIR W. HARCOURTYes. With regard to the Bills the Government desire to keep on the Paper, I prefer to mention the names of those which we hope may live rather than those which we fear may die. I would divide those Bills into several sections. The first section I would call Bills that we must pass, I think. These necessary Bills are three—the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill, the Statute Law Revision Bill, and I must also reserve power to bring in occasioned Financial Bills that may arise out of the circumstances of the time. Then I come to the second class, which are Bills of an extremely useful and non-contentious character, mostly Consolidation Bills, which are of immense convenience to all classes of the community. They have been prepared with great care, and, as they merely re-enact the present law, I hope the House will allow them to be taken in the interstices of business. They are the Sale of Goods Bill, the Trustee Consolidation Bill, the Merchant Shipping Bill, and one that does not belong entirely to this category 473 —namely, the Public Authorities Protection Bill. Then I come to the third and last class of what class of what the Government hope may be regarded and accepted by both sides of the House as non-controversial. The first is the Naval Defence Amendment Bill, which is necessary in consequence of certain difficulties that have arisen in the winding up of the Naval Defence Act. Then there is a Bill mentioned the other day by the right hon. Member for the Forest of Dean, the Madras and Bombay Army Bill, and there is the Light Railways (Ireland) Bill. Then I come to another Bill, which I hope will be accepted as non-controversial, the Sea Fisheries (Scotland) Bill. That has been agreed to in all its main particulars by the Scotch Members, and is identical in principle and similar in its provisions to the Bill introduced by the late Government. Its provisions have been recommended by a unanimous Report on Sea Fisheries this Session. Then there is the Bill of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, the Pistols Bill. I hope that Bill may be accepted as non-controversial. [Mr. HOPWOOD: No.] I understand that my hon. Friend is the only opponent of the measure, and I hope that he will withdraw his opposition, in order that the very general sense of the House may be carried out. Though it is difficult to call a Pistols Bill a non-controversial Bill, I hope it may so be treated. Then there is a Bill which comes down from the Lords, called the Law of Commons Amendment Bill. I hope that may be put in the same category. Another Bill of great importance is the Savings Bank Bill; and although the banking interest is offering considerable opposition to it, I understand from my right hon. Friend the Postmaster General that negotiations are taking place with a view to a compromise. I should, therefore, hope that the Bill would be kept on the Paper. Coming to the last Bill upon which a good deal was said the other day—I mean the Equalisation of Rates (London) Bill—I would make a very earnest appeal to gentlemen on both sides of the House to allow this measure to be placed in the non-controversial category. The opinion of London is very strong in favour of this measure, the London Members are almost unanimous upon the 474 subject, and there is no opposition to the principle involved. I hope the late Chancellor of the Exchequer will allow the Bill to be kept upon the Paper, and to be treated as a non-controversial one. If great conflict of opinion should be found with regard to it, it could then be dropped. It is a great disappointment to the Government that the circumstances will not permit of these Bills being more numerous. I hardly think it necessary to state that the Employers' Liability Bill and the Local Government (England and Wales) Bill will be kept upon the Paper as the principal Bills to be dealt with during the Autumn Sittings; and I should hope, if the right hon. Gentleman is able to state that he agrees with the list I have mentioned, that the proceedings may be shortened, and we may have an early holiday.
§ MR. GOSCHEN (St. George's, Hanover Square)I think the House will agree that while the Chancellor of the Exchequer has made a most conciliatory speech, the list of Bills which are still to be retained on the Order Paper, and which he hopes will be discussed, is rather a long one. There are 14, which the right hon. Gentleman has divided into three categories—the necessary Bills, the Consolidation Bills, and other Bills. With regard to the necessary Bills—the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill, the Statute Law Revision Bill, and the Occasional Finance Bill—I have only two remarks to make. Of course they are necessary Bills, but I am under the impression that there are matters in connection with the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill which will lead to some discussion. That has to be taken into consideration when we are discussing the distribution of the time of the House. About the Statute Law Revision Bill I presume there will be no difficulty. As to the Consolidation Bills, I have no authority to say how they will be dealt with by the House; and I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer will feel that it would be impossible for me to give a definite answer without consultation with the Leader of the Opposition and Members interested. I see no objection to the Naval Defence Act Amendment Bill passing; but I can give no answer to the right hon. Gentleman with regard to the Sea Fisheries (Scotland) Bill, the Pistols Bill, or the 475 Law of Commons Amendment Bill. I believe the Savings Bank Bill is the same measure as was introduced by the predecessor of the present Postmaster General, with this difference—that the limit of the amount of deposits is raised from £50 to £100. I understand that there is a possibility of a compromise with the bankers, and if the latter are contented we shall be prepared to see the Bill pass. Of course, I cannot speak for the bankers without consultation, but I can undertake that there will be no Party objection to the Bill. Then I come to the last Bill mentioned by the Chancellor of the Exchequer—the London Equalisation of Rates Bill. I must say I was rather astonished at the manner in which it was dealt with by the right hon. Gentleman; and I think it is scarcely fair, after the previous declarations which the right hon. Gentleman himself has made, to re-introduce this question. The right hon. Gentleman has been, no, doubt, under considerable pressure, but with that the House really has nothing to do. The right hon. Gentleman said that if it was treated as controversial it would be dropped. Certainly, there are large questions of controversy in the Bill; it is not, however, a question of the Members of this House only, but of the Local Authorities in London, and it would be unfair to the Local Authorities to call upon them at this period of the Session to present their case before the House. The Bill involves considerable difference of opinion, and I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will adhere to the declaration with regard to it that he made upon a previous occasion. It is highly probable that Members may have left London under the distinct impression that the right hon. Gentleman's decision was final. I do not feel that I am in a position to give any answer as to other Bills, though personally I think the Bombay Army Bill is a good one, and should not be treated as a matter of controversy, and that the Light Railways (Ireland) Bill might be passed.
§ SIR C. W. DILKE (Gloucester, Forest of Dean), on a point of Order, asked whether it would be in Order for anyone to make observations going beyond those of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Leader of the Oppo- 476 sition, or whether questions only could be put?
§ MR. SPEAKERruled that questions only could be put.
§ MR. WEIR (Ross and Cromarty)asked whether the Government intended to do anything in the way of legislation on behalf of the Highland Crofters?
§ MR. RADCLIFFE COOKE (Hereford)asked whether, as the Law of Commons Amendment Bill and the Sale of Goods Bill were likely to give rise to protracted discussion, it would not be better to withdraw both Bills?
§ MR. ANSTRUTHER (St. Andrews, &c.)asked whether the discussion on the Sea Fisheries (Scotland) Bill could be taken at a reasonable hour; and whether the Government, in order to facilitate the passing of the measure, would accept, without debate, all the numerous Amendments which stood on the Paper?
MR. GIBSON BOWLES (Lynn Regis)asked whether, in view of the notes on the Bill made by the draftsman, the Merchant Shipping Bill was not more than a consolidation measure?
§ MR. T. H. BOLTON (St. Pancras, N.)asked whether Progress would be reported that night at a reasonable hour, to allow the London Equalisation of Rates Bill to be discussed?
§ MR. STUART (Shoreditch, Hoxton)asked that, under the peculiar circumstances of the case, the Equalisation of Rates Bill might be read a second time?
§ COLONEL LOCKWOOD (Essex, Epping)inquired whether "the interstices of Public Business" meant Saturday Sittings?
§ MR. DARLING (Deptford)asked that sufficient notice of the Equalisation of Rates Bill coming on might be given, so that Members might be present at the discussion.
§ DR. FARQUHARSON (Aberdeenshire, W.)asked whether a Parish Councils Bill for Scotland would be brought in during the Autumn Session?
§ MR. A. C. MORTON (Peterborough)asked whether the promised Bill would be introduced for the repeal of the property qualification of Magistrates in England and Wales?
§ MR. TOMLINSON (Preston)asked whether the Government intended to 477 move Amendments on the Madras and Bombay Armies Bill or not?
§ SIR A. ROLLIT (Islington, S.)asked that, in view of the urgent need of such a measure, the Savings Banks Bill might be passed this Session? He intended to support the Equalisation of Rates Bill in favour of which he had presented a Petition from his Vestry, and thought opposition to it might be removed by bringing on any discussion at an earlier hour than 2 in the morning.
§ MR. HENEAGE (Great Grimsby)asked whether the right hon. Gentleman proposed to take these Bills after 12 o'clock, or whether he proposed to carry them over to the Autumn Session?
§ SIR H. ROSCOE (Manchester, S.), considering the recurrence of cholera, asked for facilities for passing the Isolation Hospitals Bill.
§ MR. HOWELL (Bethnal Green, N. E.)asked that the Equalisation of Rates (London) Bill should be pressed forward this Session.
§ SIR R. TEMPLE (Surrey, Kingston)asked whether the Madras and Bombay Army Bill would be taken at some hour when it could be fairly discussed?
§ MR. MORE (Shropshire, Ludlow)asked what arrangements the Government had in contemplation to enable them to send those Bills which they expected to pass shortly before Christmas to another place?
§ MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN (Birmingham, W.)My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has divided the Bills which he proposes to take into three classes. As to the first of these, I do not think there can be any objection on any side of the House. As to the second class of Bills, relating to consolidation, I should, for my own part, have no objection to them if the Government give their pledge, which I understand them to do, that they would involve no alteration of the law [cries of" Order!"] Nor can I believe there would be any objection to the third class, provided—[cries of "Order!"] I shall move the adjournment of the House if hon. Members persist in their interruptions.
§ MR. SEXTON (Kerry, N.) rose to Order, and asked the Speaker whether there was one rule for the right hon. Gentleman and another for other Mem- 478 bers of the House, who would like, not simply to put questions, which the right hon. Gentleman was not doing, but to speak?
§ MR. SPEAKERsaid, as the right hon. Gentleman was intimating that there was no objection to certain Bills, he thought the progress of Business might be facilitated if he were allowed to proceed.
§ MR. J. CHAMBERLAINCertainly, Sir. I cannot understand what the objection was. As regards the third class, there can be no objection to taking them if the Government would undertake to deal with them before 12 o'clock; but if they intend to take advantage of the new Rules I can only say there is the very greatest objection to all these Bills.
§ SIR W. HARCOURTI thoroughly admit that no Bill ought to be taken as a Consolidation Bill which is not really of that character, and if the hon. Member for King's Lynn (Mr. Gibson Bowles) is at all right in what he said respecting the Merchant Shipping Bill—namely, that there are serious alterations in it—we shall not attempt to proceed with a measure of that volume and magnitude. I will take notice of what the hon. Member has said, and inquiry shall be made into the matter. All we are doing now is keeping these Bills on the Paper. I was surprised to hear my hon. Friend the Member for St. Andrews Burghs (Mr. Anstruther), as I understand those Burghs are on the East coast of Scotland, coming forward as the principal opponent of the Sea Fisheries (Scotland) Bill.
§ MR. ANSTRUTHER (St. Andrews, &c.)said, the right hon. Gentleman was, he thought, treating him unfairly, and endeavouring to misrepresent what he had said. All he had done was to put certain questions to the right hon. Gentleman respecting the Bill. He had said no word against the Bill.
§ SIR W. HARCOURTI understand that most of the Scotch Members, except the hon. Member, have withdrawn their Amendments; but if there is any serious opposition to the Bill, and it appears that the measure will require considerable time to dispose of it, it will not be taken. As to the question of the hon. Member for King's Lynn (Mr. Gibson Bowles), I forgot to mention that what we propose is that the Merchant Shipping Bill 479 should be read a second time for the purpose of referring it to a Committee.
MR. GIBSON BOWLESpointed out that he objected to the Second Reading of the Bill, on the ground that it was not a Consolidation Bill.
§ SIR W. HARCOURTSomething was said about the interstices of business. I did not mean by that phrase a fugitive half-hour. It may occur that we may have a spare day, and in that case we shall endeavour to proceed with the least controversial of the Bills, and get them forward. I also meant that these Bills would be taken at any time during the Session. I have always endeavoured to make that clear as well as I could.
§ MR. J. CHAMBERLAINI beg my right hon. Friend's pardon. I do not know that he has said anything inconsistent with what he says now; but what he says now is distinctly inconsistent with the pledge the Prime Minister gave.
§ SIR W. HARCOURTI think the right hon. Gentleman is mistaken in that. These matters have been discussed between the Prime Minister and myself from the commencement, and I am sure if he had said anything of that kind I must have known. My recollection of what he said is that it related to the main business of the Session. It is not our intention to proceed with the Magistrates' Qualification Bill during the present Session.
§ MR. A. C. MORTON (Peterborough)The Government gave notice of the Bill early in the Session.
§ SIR W. HARCOURTAt all events, it would be regarded as a new Bill, and we cannot ask the House to go on with it now. Objection was taken by an hon. Member to the Commons Amendment Act. I think that may be regarded as not a very dangerous or revolutionary measure. I am not acquainted with the Isolation Hospitals Bill, but I will inquire concerning it. If it is a useful and urgent Bill, and no objection be taken to it, it may be disposed of. I am very sorry I cannot mention the date of the Indian Budget, because we have already stated that it is to be taken with the Appropriation Bill. I wish I knew when the Appropriation Bill would be taken. As to the Madras and Bombay Army Bill, I hope to take it in reasonable time.
§ MR. TOMLINSON (Preston)asked whether the Government proposed to support the Bill, or to move Amendments to it?
§ SIR W. HARCOURTGenerally the Government support the Bill in its present form, but, of course, they do not preclude themselves from introducing Amendments. As to the Scotch Accidents Bill, we are obliged to exclude it from the list of those to be dealt with in this part of the Session, because I understand one of its provisions is very much disputed.
§ MR. WEIR (Ross and Cromarty)asked whether the Crofters Act Amendment Bill was to be taken?
§ SIR W. HARCOURTThat would be a new Bill, and we cannot undertake to ask the House to consider new Bills now.
§ MR. POWELL WILLIAMS (Birmingham, S.)asked what was to be done in relation to the Bills of Sales Bill? He understood that the Attorney General was willing to re-consider the point when he (Mr. Williams) opposed the Bill. As he believed the Bill as a whole was a very useful one, he hoped that it might by arrangement be placed in the category of unopposed measures.
§ SIR W. HARCOURTI have inquired of the Solicitor General (Sir J. Rigby), and he thinks there is so much opposition to the Bills of Sale Bill that it cannot be included in the list of unopposed Bills.
§ MR. GOSCHEN (St. George's, Hanover Square)What is to be done respecting the Equalisation of Rates (London) Bill? I presume that, a protest having been made against it, it will not be pressed forward this Session?
§ MR. J. CHAMBERLAINThere was just now a like controversy between my right hon. Friend and myself, which I think I am now able to clear up—
§ MR. SPEAKEROrder, order! The right hon. Gentleman is displaying a newspaper. It is usual when a newspaper is used in the House to reduce it to the smallest possible compass.
§ MR. J. CHAMBERLAINI am sorry to say, Sir, I have no other report of the Debate to which to refer; but it appears that on a previous occasion I asked the Prime Minister whether, supposing that, with the assistance of the Opposition, the Second Reading of the 481 two important Bills which had been referred to were got through in a month, the Government were going to introduce other Bills. The Prime Minister replied that he thought I was going a little beyond what he had said, and referred me to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir W. Harcourt) said—
We are asked if we intend to take any other measures. Our object certainly is to promote these two measures, and, although we cannot bind ourselves before the House, it is not our intention to promote other measures than these two in the Autumn Session.
§ SIR W. HARCOURTThe right hon. Gentleman will see that I stated on another occasion, in reply to the Member for Preston (Mr. Hanbury), who asked me what I meant by "other small Bills"—I am speaking from recollection, and cannot say that those were the exact words—that I meant non-controversial measures. I am very sorry that a misunderstanding has arisen between the right hon. Gentleman and myself, but the intention of the statement I made was certainly what I have described.
§ MR. HANBURY (Preston)asked whether the question alluded to did not refer entirely to Bills to be dealt with during the present Sitting?
§ SIR W. HARCOURTI do not think so, or I should certainly never have bound myself at all. I have always intended to ask for these non-controversial measures. Surely if we have spare time we are not to sacrifice all these Bills. I think our proposal is perfectly reasonable, and it is one which has certainly always been in our minds. With reference to the Equalisation of Rates Bill, I have said, and I am bound by the statement, that, if the responsible Leaders of the Opposition regard it as a controversial measure, we shall not feel at liberty to proceed with it. I understand that my right hon. Friend opposite (Mr. Goschen) does think it a controversial measure, this opinion is in some degree reinforced by what was said by the hon. Member for St. Pancras (Mr. T. H. Bolton).
§ MR. T. H. BOLTON (St. Pancras, N.)said, that was not the case.
§ SIR W. HARCOURTI do not think the hon. Member for Deptford (Mr. Darling) spoke hostile to the Bill, but he asked very fairly whether notice would be given, so that Members would 482 be able to discuss the Bill if it came on. If that were the only condition I should be able to comply with it, as it is a very fair one. That, however, I do not understand now to be the present state of the case. I understand that the hon. member for South Islington (Sir A. Rollit) considers that the Bill could not proceed without a good deal of discussion.
§ SIR A. ROLLIT (Islington, S.)I said I was in favour of the Bill and intended to support it, but I thought that early to-morrow morning was not quite the proper time for discussing it.
§ MR. T. H. BOLTONsaid, he had expressed no opinion that the Bill was controversial. He was in favour of the Bill. He had asked merely whether the Government would report Progress at such a time as to afford an opportunity of having some discussion on the Second Reading of the Bill.
§ SIR W. HARCOURTWell, Sir, we cannot in the present state of business stop Supply in order to proceed with this, that, or the other Bill. I had hoped that as far as the Second Reading of the Equalisation of Rates Bill was concerned it would have been agreed to without further discussion. I understand that the hon. Member for North St. Pancras (Mr. T. H. Bolton) desires a discussion on the Second Reading. Well, that, of course, prevents the progress of the Bill. There is, however, very little use in considering whether there should be a discussion because I understand the Bill is not accepted as non-controversial.
§ MR. R. JASPER MORE (Shropshire, Ludlow)asked what arrangements the Government had in contemplation for sending these measures to "another place." Would the House of Lords sit between Christmas Day and New Year's Day?
§ SIR W. HARCOURTI cannot undertake to answer for what is done in another place. We can only pass our measures here.
§ SIR J. T. HIBBERTMy hon. Friend opposite has asked me, as to the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill, whether I propose to consider it on Monday as the Army Estimates are down for that day? Unless the Army Estimates are continued until a late hour I propose to take the Bill on Monday. It is necessary that the measure should pass either during the present Sittings or the Autumn Session. 483 I know that some hon. Friends of mine opposite take objection to certain Acts which are included in the Bill, but I do not think their opposition can be serious, because it will be impossible for them to take any portions out of the Bill. The Bill continues 52 Acts of Parliament, all of them, with the exception of two, having been continued from 20 to 40 years. As nearly all of those Acts expire on the 31st December, I think I can show a good case why the Bill should be allowed to proceed on every opportunity.
§ SIR M. HICKS-BEACH (Bristol, W.)May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it is proposed to take tonight any of the Bills mentioned, and, if so, at what time he proposes to report Progress?
§ DR. FARQUHARSON (Aberdeenshire, W.)asked the Secretary for Scotland whether it was the intention of the Government to introduce a Parish Councils Bill for Scotland during the Autumn Session?
§ MR. ANSTRUTHERinquired whether it was not the case that, on the Second Reading of the Sea Fisheries (Scotland) Bill to which he (Mr. Anstruther) had an Amendment extending the operation of the measure, the Secretary for Scotland had stated that he would accept the Amendment, whether the Debate was not very much restricted in consequence, and whether the right hon. Gentleman now considered it was fair to ask Members to forego all discussion of the very important branch of the subject to which the Amendment related?
§ THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Sir G. TREVELYAN,) Glasgow, BridgetonI may say that the Government have prepared not a Parish Councils Bill, but a Local Government Bill for Scotland. This measure would give to Scotland everything that will be given by the Local Government Bill for England, but of course it would be adapted to Scotland and drawn on Scotch lines. Whether or not it would be in accordance with the engagements made by the Government that this Bill should be introduced during the Autumn Session I will not discuss, because I do not think there will be any need to introduce it and have it before this House. The Bill is prepared, and I have no doubt that the 484 English Bill will be a pledge and a prelude to the introduction of the Scotch Bill. In reply to my hon. Friend the Member for St. Andrews (Mr. Anstruther), the Government would have been extremely glad to introduce the Amendment relating to the salmon fisheries which he proposed, and no doubt it is true that if the Government had not expressed that willingness my hon. Friend would have occupied, and would have been justified in occupying, for a longer period the time of the House. But, as the matter now stands, the only chance of passing the Bill is to pass it without the salmon Amendments. The Government believe that the Bill in its present shape is unanimously approved by Scottish Members, except with regard to some omissions from the financial clauses which the Government are prepared to make. I am afraid if my hon. Friend insists on salmon Amendments being inserted there will be no chance of passing the Bill this Session.
§ MR. ANSTRUTHERasked whether the Government had any intention of proceeding with the Committee stage of the Bill before Monday? He wished to have an opportunity of considering whether it was possible to adopt the plan suggested by the right hon. Gentleman.
§ MR. HOZIER (Lanarkshire, S.)inquired whether there were not certain Amendments with regard to the payment of fishermen's expenses, and so on, which were important?
§ SIR G. TREVELYANThe Government propose, in deference to what I believe to be the pretty general opinion of the Scottish Members, to leave out Clause 20—the financial clause. There are also some small Amendments which the Government are prepared to accept, and I believe we shall be able to meet all the objections taken to the Bill by Scottish Members, though I cannot say we shall be able to introduce all the Amendments they wish to make. I earnestly hope that between this and Monday my hon. Friend (Mr. Anstruther) will consider the position, and that he will agree to the course I suggest.
§ CAPTAIN NORTON (Newington, W.)May I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether we are to definitely understand that he feels himself unable to proceed with the Equalisation of 485 Rates Bill for London in consequence of the hostile attitude of the Opposition?
§ SIR W. HARCOURTNo, Sir; that is not right. I stated some time ago that with the exception of the two Bills mentioned, we did not intend to take controversial measures, and therefore I endeavoured to ascertain as far as I could what the opinion of the House was as to what was controversial business. I am satisfied that a considerable portion of the House regard this as a controversial Bill. We therefore have decided not to go on with it.
MR. GIBSON BOWLESasked whether it was intended to go on with the Second Reading of the Merchant Shipping Bill that evening, or whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer would undertake not to proceed with the Second Reading until his (Mr. Bowles's) objection had been fully considered?
§ SIR W. HARCOURTI think the hon. Member must be satisfied with the declaration that we will not take it to-night.
§ MR. R. G. WEBSTER (St. Pancras, E.)inquired whether the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury (Sir J. T. Hibbert) was aware that the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill contained the Ballot Act, and that as that Act was a controversial measure, as shown by the discussion which took place last Session, he would allow it to be discussed separately?
§ SIR W. HARCOURTThe hon. Member, as well as other hon. Members, does not seem to understand that no Amendment could be made in any Act included in the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill. An Act can be omitted, but not amended. Hon. Members should bear this simple fact in mind in connection with my statement that the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill is a measure of a non-controversial character.