§ Considered in the Committee.
§ (In the Committee.)
§
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That towards making good the Supply granted to Her Majesty for the service of the year ending on the 31st day of March 1895, the sum of £27,795,151 be granted put of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom."—(The Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
§ MR. SEXTONI move to report Progress.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Sexton.)
125§ SIR W. HARCOURTI am sure the hon. Member will not persist in his Motion, as the result would be to prevent the Appropriation Bill being brought in at the time fixed. It is necessary to carry this Financial Resolution in order to found the Appropriation Bill, and to wind up the business at the time decided upon.
§ MR. DALZIELsaid, this was the only way they had of showing their feeling that the Government had been guilty of pretty sharp practice. The undertaking was that the Report should be taken to-night. The Government had not treated the hon. Members fairly in this matter, and some explanation ought to be forthcoming. It was known that some of them wanted to raise questions on Report, and it was only when heads were counted that it was decided to postpone the Report.
§ SIR W. HARCOURTsaid, he hoped he had done nothing to create the belief that he bad intentionally misled the House. He had no idea of taking the Report to-night.
§ MR. DALZIELsaid, he did not for a moment desire to accuse the right hon. Gentleman of intentionally misleading the House, but the understanding ought to be carried out.
§ MR. SEXTONsaid, there was a body of Members in the House whose country was suffering sorely, who met with very slight consideration, and whose patience had been severely drawn upon, and would not stand the strain much longer. If the Government had chosen to go through the Orders of the Day they would have met with no opposition, but they had chosen to postpone certain Orders by an arrangement with the Tory Party. They were not there to make arrangements with the Tory Party, but to defeat them. He should not recognise any arrangement, and he would persevere in the Motion he had made.
§ MR. A. C. MORTONsaid, he should be sorry to prevent the carrying out of an understanding arrived at at an earlier period of the evening—namely, that they should finish by Friday morning. He was afraid they had been jockeyed. When the hon. Gentleman opposite moved to report Progress to find out what 126 it was proposed to do, he (Mr. Morton) had appealed to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to put off certain Votes in Supply—that was to say, the Votes agreed to on Friday and Saturday. He had promised to put off one item, and had complained of his (Mr. Morton's) asking for the postponement of two or three, though, as a matter of fact, he had appealed for the postponement of "two or three." He (Mr. Morton) did not get the promise. He did not want to prevent business being concluded. They had all, he thought, shown that they desired to get the business concluded as soon as possible. He thought the Government had not acted quite fairly if they had made a private arrangement with the Tory Party.
§ Question put.
§ The Committe divided:—Ayes 31; Noes 54.—(Division List, No. 237.)
§ Original Question again proposed.
§ MR. DALZIELsaid, he would move "that the Chairman do now leave the Chair." He did not think it necessary to go over the ground already gone over; but as a large number of Members had stayed to deal with the Report, a strong feeling would exist if the Report wore postponed.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do now leave the Chair."—(Mr. Dalziel.)
§ SIR W. HARCOURTsaid, he hoped the hon. Member would not oppose this stage, but would rest content with the decision which had been given, and the expression of opinion which had taken place. He was sure that there was a general desire to hasten the close of the Session, and he hoped it would be allowed to close in peace.
§ MR. SEXTONsaid, that the Representatives of Ireland could have no wish to prolong a Session in which they had got nothing. It had been quite as long for them as for anyone else, and they had got less than anyone else by it. The Report of the 17th of August was postponed in order that the Tory Party might be drummed up to-morrow to vote in defence of the House of Lords. That was a proceeding which did not meet with the approval of the rank and file of 127 the Liberal Party, which did not accord with the feeling of the country, and which he did not think creditable to the Chiefs of the Liberal Party.
§ MR. DALZIELsaid, the feeling was so strong that he felt bound to persist in the Motion. Many Members who wished to raise questions on particular Votes had put them off until next Session in order that the Report of Supply on the Paper might be taken; and, at the last moment, the Report was postponed.
§ Question put.
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 30; Noes 56.—(Division List, No. 238.)
§ Original Question again proposed.
§ MR. SEXTONmoved to reduce the sum by £20,000. In explanation of this Motion he said amongst the Orders of the Day on the Paper, in the Report of Supply there was a Vote for the salaries and expenses of the House of Lords, which Vote was the subject of a Division, and a close Division, in Committee of Supply. If the Government had carried out their engagements and taken the Orders of the Day in the order in which they stood, that Vote would again have been challenged, a Division would again have been taken, and the result might have been different. The Government, after a consultation with their political opponents, to whose opinions they showed more deference and regard than to those of their followers, determined to postpone the Orders, and consequently the particular and specific issue which they desired to raise could not be raised that night. It might, however, be raised next day, and probably would when the Report of Supply was taken. But for the moment the only proceeding open to him, as he could not proceed in Committee of Supply wherein the expenditure was authorised, was to move upon the Vote which provided the money. If the money was not forthcoming it could not be paid. A reduction of —20,000 might not apply itself to the expenses of the House of Lords, and he supposed the Treasury would have discretion as to who would have to bear the reduction. At any rate, the moving of the Motion enabled him to state that fact; and from that time forward, whatever might be the delicacy that induced 128 Ministers to refuse to give voice to the feeling of their supporters and the feeling of the country in regard to the House of Lords, there would no longer be any delay or silence on the part of the Irish Members whenever occasion arose in which directly or remotely the powers or expenses of that Assembly could be challenged. It was the money of the people that was being voted. The Irish people paid their full share of that money, and a great deal more than their fair share of that money, and he, as one of the Irish Members, said, what many Scotch and English Members would say for their constituents, they would not concur, this year or in the future, in the passing of any money for the expenses of the House which had proved itself to be the enemy of the people of this, country, and especially the enemy of Ireland.
§
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That £27,775,151 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom."—(Mr. Sexton.)
§ SIR W. HARCOURTsaid, the hon. Member had reproached the Government for their conduct in entering into arrangements not in reference to any particular question, but in reference to the general business of the House. It was his duty to state that it was absolutely impossible that the business of the House could be conducted especially in regard to the progress of Supply except on an understanding in all parts of the House. Did anyone suppose that without the concurrence of the Opposition or their Leaders they would have made the progress they had done at the close of the Session, or for a long time past in the Session? All he could say was that he could not be responsible for the conduct of the business of the House unless he was allowed to do that which every person who had ever been in the position he held had always done, and always must do, unless the House was put in a condition of chaos. It was absolutely necessary, if they were to come to a close on their proceedings, that they should have general arrangements, and not arrangements in reference to particular Votes. The course the hon. Member proposed to take was, he held, unexampled, and he appealed to the House not to introduce a practice entirely without precedent.
§ MR. DALZIELsaid, they must all appreciate the line taken up by the right hon. Gentleman, and recognise the force of his contention that arrangements must be made with the Opposition in order to get through the business of Supply. He thought the hon. Member for Kerry would not challenge that contention. But that was not the point that was complained of at all. They knew that that night, when the Votes were being passed, the Government Whips would make overtures to the Whips of the Opposition Party to keep their men there in order that they might defeat their friends. He thought upon that point they certainly had cause to complain.
§ MR. DILLON (Mayo, E.)said, he thought the Leader of the House was under a mistake in reference to the cause of complaint made by the Irish Members. He spoke only for himself, but he fancied he should express pretty clearly what it was that the Irish Members complained of was the conduct of business by the Government. The Votes in which they were interested were concluded at a comparatively early hour of the night, and they had throughout the Session sat through many a weary night for weeks and mouths, when their constituents had no interest in the business before the House, in order to support the Government, consulting the convenience of the Government, and not their own. That being so, they would, he thought, naturally be entitled to expect their convenience would be, to some extent, consulted. That night they had remained there three or four hours at great inconvenience, having no particular business to keep thorn there, because there was a Vote coming on on the Report of Supply in which they took a real interest. This was no matter of mere sentiment. It was a matter of life and death for their people, and they were prepared to sit up all night, or to sit there for weeks or months, if by doing so they could advance the cause in which they were interested. They had sat there for four or five hours that night, waiting patiently for certain Votes which they had been given to understand would be taken. Without the slightest warning to them, and in the most mysterious and, to them, utterly inexplicable way, the Report of Supply 130 was withdrawn. Was that a fair or proper way to treat a body of Members who had, throughout the entire length of the Session, thought little of their own convenience in order to help the Government? It was unreasonable for the Government to expect the Irish Members to continue to give that loyal and persistent support which they had given without some consideration being shown to them in reply. If they had succeeded in defeating the Vole on Friday they would have had something to show the people of Ireland for this long Session. He was sorry they had very little to show now. They had some reason to believe they might have reversed the verdict that night. They did not want to inconvenience the Government, but they had obtained no rational explanation of the sudden and mysterious withdrawal of the Report of Supply, and that being so, and they being faithful and loyal supporters of the Government, the Government could not be surprised if they suspected some understanding in regard to the House of Lords veto.
§ MR. A. C. MORTONthought there ought to be a reply to the speech of his hon. Friend. There would really be no difficulty in deducting £20,000 from this Vote and deciding on the Report of Supply on which head the deduction was to be made.
§ SIR W. HARCOURTsaid, he had no further reply to make. They had the power to express their resentment, as the Members for Peterborough (Mr. A. C. Morton), and Sheffield (Sir E. Ashmead-Bartlett), had expressed it. He had endeavoured frankly to state to the House the reason for the course he had pursued.
§ SIR W. LAWSON (Cumberland, Cockermouth)said, if the Chancellor of the Exchequer would only just get up and say the Government had determined to act upon the resolution of the Leeds Conference and do as early as possible what they could to get rid of the Lords veto they would all go home, and there would be no more squabbling.
§ SIR W. HARCOURTsaid, he was asked a question on this subject earlier in the day, and he made an answer then. He had no further answer to give.
§ MR. A. C. MORTONsaid, he should not have an opportunity to-morrow to vote against the House of Lords. He had his opportunity now, and was going to take it.
§ The Committee having been cleared for a Division,
§ SIR J. CARMICHAEL (Glasgow, St. Rollox)seated, and with his hat on: On a point of Order, I wish to ask you, Mr. Mellor, whether in the event of this Vote being carried, and in the event of the question coming upon a further Vote on the Report stage, would not this £25,000 be deducted from the English and Scotch Votes?
§ MR. DALZIELI beg to ask you, Sir, on the point of Order, whether it would not be possible to decide that Vote on the Third Reading of the Appropriation Bill?
§ MR. SEXTONIs not this, Mr. Mellor, a contingent and hypothetic question which cannot be answered?
§ Question put.
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 33; Noes 53.—(Division List, No. 239.)
§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGEIt must be perfectly obvious to the Government that progress is impossible at this late hour of the night. I should like to further discuss this question, and therefore I move that you report Progress, and ask leave to sit again.
§ Motion made, and Question put, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Lloyd-George.)
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 32; Noes 54.—(Division List, No. 240.)
§ Original Question again proposed.
§ MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHY (Longford, N.)said, he begged to move that the Chairman do now leave the Chair. It must be surely plain to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he could make no further progress with this business that night. He wished to say to him that there was no feeling amongst the Irish 132 Members, nor, as far as he knew, among any Members of the House, in a hostile sense to the right hon. Gentleman. But he was sure he was speaking for the Irish Members, and, indeed, for the English, Scotch, and Welsh Members, when he said they had felt there had been a want of earnestness on the part of the Government in expressing the feelings of that House and the feelings of the people generally with regard to the House of Lords. They had felt, after what had taken place, that there had not been that earnestness on the part of the Government that they expected. That night efforts seemed to them to have been made to prevent even the consideration of this Vote by the House, and to shelter the House of Lords against an expression of feeling, and that for that purpose arrangements were made—arrangements of a somewhat special character, with which they had nothing to do, of which they knew nothing, and about which they were not consulted, and these arrangements were made for the purpose of preventing the House from taking another vote on the action of the House of Lords. For these reasons he begged to move that the Chairman do now leave the Chair,
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do now leave the Chair."—(Mr. Justin M'Carthy.)
§ SIR W. HARCOURTsaid, of course he must recognise, he had been too long a Member of the House of Commons not to recognise, that if a minority of that House were determined that no further progress should be made, it was impossible to resist. He had never thought or expected that it was possible to bring the Session to an early conclusion except by agreement with all parts of the House. That he had sought, but he was sorry to say that at all events with one part of the House he had failed to come to an agreement with, and the early conclusion of the Session was put out of the question in consequence, no doubt, of the course which had been taken that night. Of course, the House was not full now, but he believed that if it were fuller they would have a strong expression of opinion that it was desirable there should be an early conclusion of the Session. As things stood, he did not see that it was 133 possible that they could continue their efforts to make an early conclusion of the Session. Therefore, if his hon. Friends desired to press this Motion he did not see how it was possible to resist it. In these circumstances he could not help the situation, and they must abandon all hopes of attempting to bring the Session to au early conclusion.
§ MR. DALZIELsaid, he would suggest to his hon. Friends opposite whether they did not think they had now reached a point which considerably altered the situation so far as this matter was concerned, and, speaking for himself, he should strongly advise them—he only offered it as a suggestion—now that the justice of their protest had been recognised by the Government, as it had been recognised by the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and as he thought it ought to have been recognised earlier in the evening, whether or not they were wise in doing what was practically making the officials of the House and the other Members of the House sit another day in order to complete the business of Supply. Personally, he thought they ought not to take a course that would carry over the Session until Saturday, and as he understood that would be the effect if they now adopted the Resolution of the hon. Member opposite, and as he understood that they might be able, as he hoped and was certain they would, to raise this question again on the different stages of the Appropriation Bill, he should strongly suggest to hon. Gentlemen opposite that they should consider the advisability of withdrawing the Motion that was now made in order that the House might not be compelled to sit on Saturday.
§ Mr. DILLONsaid, he concurred most heartily in the opinion stated by the Leader of their Party that their action had not been dictated in the smallest degree by any personal feeling to the Leader of the House. There was no personal feeling to that right hon. Gentleman except a feeling of personal friendliness. But he altogether differed with the hon. Member who had just spoken that the justice of their protest had been recognised. The Leader of the House had in no way, in the speech he had just 134 made, recognised the reasonableness of their protest. He had said, on the contrary, that if the House wore fuller he believed a very strong expression of feeling would have been the result, and that if the Tory Benches had been fuller that would have been the result. What was the character of their protest? He wished once more to state it clearly to the House. Their protest was exceedingly simple. The Leader of the House had stated that he had endeavoured to bring the Session to an early close by consulting all sides of the House. They were not consulted. They did not desire any elaborate consultation—all they wanted was that the Whips of the Liberal Party should in common courtesy have consulted the convenience of the men who throughout the Session had given as loyal support as any Government had ever received from any Party in that House, and as loyal as any Government ever would. He was quite convinced the Whips of the Liberal Party must have been aware of the purpose for which they were remaining there for hours, and they never gave them a hint, and they never consulted them, as to the change of the programme of the Government, and left them in absolute ignorance. And now they sprang upon them, without notice, and he ventured to say upon their own supporters below the Gangway, too, and without a single hint, a change of front in the order of business which he was sure was communicated to the Whips of the Tory Party long before. That was not fair. That was not the way to secure loyalty or to bring the business of the Session to a peaceable and rapid conclusion. And he was bound to say that he thought in this instance the Leaders of the Liberal Party had not exhibited the slightest concern for the convenience of their own most loyal supporters, and therefore he thought it was not the fact that the Leader of the House had consulted all sections of the House in his desire to bring this Session to a rapid conclusion. If he had consulted the Irish Party he ventured to say that four or five hours ago an arrangement could have been made perfectly easy whereby an understanding could have been come to. They at least had a right to have their views taken into account, and au opportunity of stating their views on the 135 matter before this change of front was made. Their complaint was an extremely simple one. It was that they had been kept there for four or five hours with nothing to do, but to wait for certain business in which they were interested, and then it was withdrawn, not to convenience them, not to convenience the main body of the Radical Party, but to convenience some mysterious gentlemen whom they knew nothing about. He did not think that that was the way to expedite the business of the Session, and in view of the fact that they had been denied the right of taking this Vote that night, he could not agree with the hon. Member who spoke last, and he would support the Motion of his hon. Friend.
§ SIR W. HARCOURTsaid, he must say one word in answer to his hon. Friend who had just spoken. He wanted to say that he did not feel he could be justly charged with want of recognition of the assistance and support which the Government throughout the whole of this Session had received from Members from Ireland. He had felt it very strongly, and he desired to recognise it on all occasions, and he had done nothing either that night or at any other time inconsistent with the very constant and loyal support which they had received from the Irish Party.
§ MR. KNOXsaid, that "soft words," unfortunately, "buttered no parsnips," and though they had had plenty of kind phrases they had had very little in the way of deeds. He would like to know at what time the final and unbreakable and binding engagement with the Tory Party on the conduct of Report of Supply—
§ SIR W. HARCOURTThere was no engagement at all.
§ MR. EVERETT (Suffolk, Woodbridge)said, there wore two points which he thought they were all agreed upon. Those two points were—first, that they all wanted, at the very earliest possible moment, to put an end to the veto power of the other House of Parliament; and, secondly, they all felt the warmest sympathy with the Irish Members in the 136 cruel treatment that those measures designed especially for their benefit had received, and which had prevented them from coming to fruition. They sympathised most deeply with the Irish Members. For himself, he could say it was always with the greatest reluctance that he gave a vote in opposition to the Irish Members. He felt they had suffered much and suffered long in that House. They had great reason to complain of the treatment that had been meted out to them by the other House of Parliament; but he confessed he failed to see how it was doing any injury to the other House of Parliament to keep themselves out of their beds like this to-night. He did hope that the Irish gentlemen, having made their protest, which he thought they were perfectly justified in doing, and seeing that the prolonging of this Session would not hurt the other House, but would only hurt themselves, would kindly now let them bring these proceedings to a close and part good friends, with the mutual assurance that they would all do the very utmost they could, at the very earliest possible moment, to bring the veto of the other House of Parliament to an end.
§ MR. SEXTONsaid, he begged to thank the hon. Member who had just spoken for his kind words, and he wished to add, in all sincerity, that they had no desire to incommode the hon. Member, nor even the Tory Party, but they could not give convenience the foremost place when questions of principle arose. He would say to his hon. Friend who had just spoken that he had never doubted the good feeling, the warm friendship, that existed for their country among the Liberal Party, and neither had he ever doubted the feelings of the electorate of the United Kingdom, that sent this Parliament here to pass Home Rule for Ireland. But he must say that all the circumstances of the direction of the Liberal Party, including the circumstances that had transpired that night, had led them rather to fear that the spirit of the direction of the Liberal Party did not always entirely agree with the strong feeling of the Liberal Party at large in that House, or the feeling of the Liberal Party in the country. Would hon. Members consider the principle and point of their position? This Parliament was 137 elected two years ago for what purpose? For the main and primary purpose of giving Home Rule to Ireland. If it had not been for the House of Lords Ireland would now have been in the enjoyment of her legislative independence. They had no fault to find with this House. This House carried a Bill for Home Rule, and the majority of the country approved it, but the House of Lords refused it.
§ MR. MACARTNEY (Antrim, S.)On a point of Order, Mr. Mellor. I desire to ask you whether the hon. Member is in Order in discussing the question of Homo Rule on this Vote?
§ MR. SEXTONsaid, he was submitting arguments why the Committee should disagree with that portion of the Vote which was devoted to the purposes of the House of Lords. When the House of Lords had done that to which he had just referred, and when the occasion arose for action to be taken upon what he maintained to be the genuine feeling of this House, for an expression of opinion in regard to the House of Lords, and that action was not taken, it did seem to him to suggest thoughts of a gloomy character and grave reflections tending, perhaps, to suggest doubts of good faith in some quarters, and tending, perhaps, not to the safe continuance of that solidarity which had existed between their country and the Liberal Party for some years past. These thoughts were suggested when he found that, when action might have boon taken, when it would have been open to that House to express an opinion in regard to the House of Lords, the Liberals, or some of the Liberal Party, were themselves acting in private concert with the chiefs arid officials of the Tory Party for the purpose of delaying that Vote and of calling in the presence of a body of Tories sufficient to overbear the opinion of Ireland, and the opinion of that part of the Liberal Party which, he ventured to say, most closely reflected the feelings of the country.
§ Question put.
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 32; Noes 53.—(Division List, No. 241.)
§ Original Question put.
MR. HERBERT LEWIS (Flint, &c.)said, he begged to move the reduction of 138 the Vote by £10,000 on a ground special to Wales. The ultimate authority, before which all measures relating to Wales came, was the House of Lords, and the Representatives of Wales in the House of Lords were the Bishops of Wales. The Bishops had mutilated all the intermediate Education Acts passed in that House during the Session. The County Councils of Wales, and the other Public Bodies, almost unanimously supported those schemes, and yet the House of Lords had set thorn on one side. He did not desire to take up the time of the Committee, but he desired to make this formal protest on behalf of Wales by moving to reduce the Vote by £10,000.
§
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That £27,785,151 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom."— (Mr. Herbert Lewis.)
§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid, he should like to say a few words on this point. He rather felt that up to the present this question had been treated as one peculiar to Ireland; but it was not altogether an Irish question. It was a question in which the Radical Party of Ireland, Scotland, England, and Wales took a keen interest. They rather felt that the Government had not shown any earnest desire to deal effectively with the question. An opportunity was afforded them the other day of most effectually, in their opinion, dealing with this question of the House of Lords by stopping the supplies of the House of Lords. In fact, that was the only constitutional method of dealing with a grievance of that kind. But the Government, instead of adopting a very simple method of dealing with this grievance, summoned the support of the Tory Party to defeat their own supporters, and their own plain policy with regard to the House of Lords. As he had said, this was not merely an Irish question, but it was also a Welsh question. The House of Lords had from time to time mutilated every educational scheme with regard to Wales—in fact, that was about the only opportunity they had had of dealing with a Welsh question. But the Government had pledged themselves to deal with a much larger Welsh question next Session than they had hitherto 139 done: that was the great question of the Welsh Church.
§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid, he was coming to the point of the Welsh Intermediate Education Schemes. That was the only opportunity which the House of Lords had had of discussing any Welsh question. Those schemes had had the unanimous support, of the Welsh people behind them, and the overwhelming preponderance of the Welsh Bodies, yet the House of Lords had rejected or mutilated those schemes one after another. He could not allow any opportunity of this kind to pass without recording a most emphatic protest, not merely against the action of the House of Lords, but against the action of the Government in trifling with this question.
§ MR. E. J. C. MORTON (Devonport)said, he should like to say one or two words of earnest appeal to the Government on the question that they were really discussing now, or rather the question they had all of them in their minds. The labours of this House, the time of this House, which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Midlothian described as "the treasure of the nation," had been absolutely wasted by persons sitting in another place, and the essence of their action there that night was that they all wanted to see that the Government would seriously consider this situation and would seriously pledge themselves to deal with it. The present Prime Minister, in the first speech he made on a public platform after he became Prime Minister, appealed to the people of this country and to the Party which he led to give him inspiration and guidance upon this question. Those were his words. They were often taunted by their opponents of the House with being a composite Party, and so they were. They had Radicals among them, and unfortunately they had Whigs too. They had good men, and men who were called official Liberals. That challenge from the Prime Minister was taken up by that portion of the Party to which they belonged—this so-called official Liberal Party. It was not taken up by the Radicals or by the Labour people; it 140 was taken up by the official Liberals. They held this meeting at Leeds, and after six hours' debate they came, with one special exception, to a definite conclusion as to what they demanded, and the demand then made was that the Government should, in the present Parliament, introduce a Bill to embody the demand that the House of Commons should be allowed to override the decision of the House of Lords in the same Session in which any conflict between the two Houses took place. What reply had they had to this? They had had a reply by the Prime Minister, stating that the resolution of the Leeds Conference was worthy of careful consideration, and they had had a reply by the Secretary for Scotland, in which he absolutely misunderstood the resolution of the Leeds Conference in stating that they were demanding a suspensory veto.
THE CHAIRMANOrder, order! The hon. Member is going into the merits of the question. He must confine himself to the Question before the House.
§ MR. E. J. C. MORTONsaid, he would drop that line. He wished to point out that they were in this position at the present moment—that the official Liberals of the Liberal Party distrusted the Government upon this one question, and he spoke with knowledge when he said that they were not only jeopardising the position and strength of their Party in the country by abstaining from making clear what their position was upon this question, but they were, as they had seen that night, allying themselves with their own opponents in the House to defeat their own strongest supporters upon the very question as to whether they were to vote money to enable the House of Lords to continue the obstruction which the Government said they desired to avoid. That was the issue, and they would not feel at all in a wrong position in fighting their own Leaders on this question. It was their Leaders, and not they, who had forced on this issue, and he believed the essential wisdom of the situation to be represented by the hon. Baronet the Member for Cumberland when he said they could settle the whole thing if only the Government would make an honest, and 141 plain, and definite declaration upon this question before the House that night.
§ MR. DILLONsaid, the people of Ireland had been exceedingly patient—extraordinarily patient—on this question of the House of Lords. They had looked to this House on more than one occasion as to the treatment of their country by the House of Lords, and he confessed that there was at present in that country a bitter feeling of disappointment that, on the second time on which a great Bill vitally affecting the interests of the people of Ireland had been treated with contempt and contumely in another place, this House had given no expression to the feelings of the people of England as regarded that treatment of the people of Ireland. He thought that feeling was justified and was not unnatural in the minds of the people of Ireland; and if the Government had availed themselves of some opportunity, or had given this House some opportunity of expressing its opinion on the action of the other House with regard to the Evicted Tenants Bill, this trouble would never have arisen. He would ask the House to consider the position in which private Members were placed. It was impossible for anyone to even challenge the verdict of that House on the question of the powers—as they thought, the most mischievous powers—of the other branch of the Legislature, until this Vote came on the other night, when they seized the opportunity which was given to them—the only constitutional opportunity which was open to them—to challenge the verdict of this House on the conduct of the other House, and he ventured to say that no vote given by this House for many a long day had brought more satisfaction and rejoicing to the people of Ireland than the vote which they gave the other night. That vote was a very close one; and though it was in a small House, and though it was merely accidental, if there had been time for a larger number of the Irish Members to be present—for it must be remembered the vote came on unexpectedly—undoubtedly the vote would have been defeated. The Irish Members in this matter had a cause of grave complaint against the Government, though he repeated once more that their action that night had not been directed, or in the 142 least degree due to any personal feeling, against the Leader of the House, or against any other Member of the Government. So far, at least, as he was himself concerned—and he thought it was the feeling of many of his colleagues— the whole cause of complaint was as regarded the action of the Government in the conduct of their business that night. And he thought their cause of complaint was a perfectly legitimate cause of complaint, and he had to say to the Leader of the House and to those responsible for the business of the House, that from the beginning of this long and controversial discussion, no kind of satisfaction whatever had been given to them. There was no single man responsible for the business of the House who had attempted to explain why Report of Supply was withdrawn, or who had given any explanation why the intention to withdraw it was not communicated in a reasonable time to the Irish Members. From the beginning of this discussion up to the present hour no one had attempted to explain why the Report of Supply was withdrawn. There was every reason for the Government getting through with it. No one on either side of the House protested against their going on. It was a matter of notoriety that Report of Supply should have been taken without any prolonged discussion, or that if any Vote in the course of that discussion had turned out to be contentious, it could have been adjourned with the consent of the House until to-morrow. Therefore, there was apparent on the surface of what took place that night no conceivable motive which could be assumed by the Government for withdrawing this Report of Supply, suddenly and mysteriously, and at a late hour, without consulting their numerous supporters who had been waiting in the House the whole night to take part in these Votes. Therefore, they were perfectly justified, according to the habits and traditions of this House, as they knew them, in making the protest they had made. It had been put to them that, having made their protest, they should withdraw. His experience of that House, which extended over a rather long and stormy number of years, had led him to the conclusion that making their protest and then withdrawing their 143 Motion was the most futile course. If they intended to withdraw their Motion after making their protest, they might as well save their breath and not make it at all, because the result of that course simply meant that they would never again obtain the slightest recognition from the Front Bench. He did not want to complain of or quarrel with Ministers. They all knew Ministers had a great deal on hand and a great many difficulties to get round. But when they found that some of their own followers were in attendance for the discussion of a particular Vote, when their convenience was set at nought, and when they were treated as they were treated that night, if they made their protest and then withdrew it, the result would be that they would never be again consulted in the slightest degree. That was not the practice of the Irish Party, and he trusted it never would be. They had shown through two long years that they could support a Government and hold their tongues when they were given fair play, and they would support the Government, so long as they got fair play, as loyally as any other portion of their supporters. They could either remain silent or they could talk; but he trusted that as in the past the Irish Party, when they had to fight against all Front Benches and all Parties in that House, even when they were not in large numbers, had shown that they could not be treated as a negligeable quantity, they would show that they could not be treated so now. He had never been engaged in any protest that he had not seen out to the bitter end, and he would do the same in the present ease unless some satisfactory explanation was given.
§ MR. DALZIELsaid, the Members of the Government now upon that Bench must recognise that there was suspicion not only upon the opposite side of the House, but upon that side of the House with regard to the intentions of the Government in respect to the House of Lords. It had been very simply told that night by the hon. Member for Cumberland, and that was that if the Chancellor of the Exchequer would simply say that next Session the Government intended to introduce a Bill which should deal with the veto of the House of Lords everyone would be perfectly satisfied, and 144 they would go home to bed. He did not think that was a very extravagant demand to make. He had no doubt whatever that he majority of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen felt as strongly as they did about he House of Lords; but what they said was that, as a Government, they had had no declaration whatever from them as to what their policy was to be. They knew what the opinions of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle were; they knew what the opinions of the Home Secretary were. They knew they were strongly antagonistic to the House of Lords, but they had had no declaration from the Government as a Government. All they had had from the Prime Minister up to the present time, in reply to the resolution of the Leeds Conference, was a note stating that it was certainly question requiring the greatest consideration. That was not enough. In a day or two that House would adjourn, and they would not meet again, in the ordinary course of things, until the middle of January next year, and during the whole of the Autumn there was not a single supporter of the Government who could say on authority that the Government he supported was going to take action with regard to the House of Lords. What some of them were inclined to believe was that the Government, as a Cabinet, were pledged to come to a definite decision as to their policy in regard to the House of Lords. If that was so, the sooner they knew it the better, and if they were determined to deal with the House of Lords, as personally he believed they were, he thought it was for the advantage not only of that House, but for the advantage of the Party generally that they should know once for all what that policy was to be. That was not a great demand to make upon them. The Government had told them they were going to introduce a Welsh Disestablishment Bill and other Bills next Session, and surely, taking all the circumstances of the case into account, it was not a great demand they were making. They had made declarations with regard to these other Bills, and if they would also make a similar declaration that a Bill dealing with the veto of the House of Lords would also be included in the Ministerial programme they would be 145 satisfied. That was the demand they made. That, was the desire of the action taken that night, and whether the Government made a declaration to-night or not, he hoped they would see before very long that if they were to expect unswerving support, from their followers on that side of the House, they must, let them know whether they intended to deal with this question of the House of Lords.
§ SIR W. LAWSONsaid, he wished to point out to the Committee that this demand for a statement of what really was going to be done with the House of Lords did not come alone from them, who might be supposed to be the extreme Radicals, but that it came from the whole Party, so to speak. He would quote one sentence which would prove that from an article in The Speaker of last week. He supposed The Speaker was a Radical Paper. He had always looked upon it as a paper which substantially expressed the opinions which he himself held. The Speaker, in its article, said—
The duty of the Government is now set plainly before them. It is they who must now direct the character of the policy with regard to the House of Lords. They have been fairly challenged, and if they fail to accept that challenge it must be at the cost of the confidence of their Party.It, could not be put, plainer than that. Their own friends called upon them to make the decision, and he entreated them to make such a statement as would ensure to them the confidence of their Party—a confidence which they had had so long and so deservedly, and which if they would only take this step they would continue to have for many a long year.
§ SIR W. HARCOURTsaid, his hon. Friend had asked him, on a Motion to reduce the Vote on Ways and Means by £10,000, to make a statement of the policy of the Government with reference to the House of Lords. Now, surely, a more unreasonable demand was never made upon a Minister. As to the view the Government took on the conduct of the House of Lords in rejecting measures which had been passed by the House of Commons, which were in the opinion of the Government, and in the opinion of the majority of the Representatives of the people, necessary for the good of the nation, there had never been any concealment at all. The views of the Government upon that subject had been expressed 146 over and over again, and the Government intended to act upon those views. And, above all, they had regretted the danger and mischief which had been caused by the House of Lords in rejecting those measures which a majority of that House and a majority of the people regarded as necessary for the welfare and peace of Ireland. On that point the Government had never withheld their opinions, and they had expressed them as clearly as they could. The hon. Member had alluded to the pledges made by the different Members of the Government. Well, some months ago he had the opportunity of making a speech upon this subject at Portsmouth, and he thought he then expressed his views of the subject pretty clearly, and by those views he abided. But if the Government were to undertake matters of this magnitude and gravity it was necessary that the Government should enjoy the confidence of the House of Commons, without which they could do nothing at all, even in matters far less grave than this. And if they did not enjoy that confidence of the majority of the House of Commons which would support them in all due consideration of the measures which were necessary for so great a constitutional change, it would be perfectly idle for them to undertake the responsibility of such a task. That was their situation, and they claimed at the hands of the House of Commons, and he believed they would receive—and they must ask the nation from whom they received their mandate, the right, and the necessary right, to have the proper time and the proper manner at their discretion to bring forward the plan by which they proposed to carry out their intentions.
§ MR. EDWARDSpressed for some more tangible assurance than the Chancellor of the Exchequer had just given as to what the Government intended as regards the veto of the House of Lords.
§ MR. EVERETT,whilst admitting that the Irish Party had ground for complaint, pointed out that it was only by continuing to act in harmony with the present Government that Liberal measures could be carried.
§ Question put.
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 32; Noes 53.—(Division List, No. 242.)
147§ Original Question again proposed.
§ MR. SEXTONexpressed his doubts as to whether the proceedings of the Government would tend either to the advantage of the Liberal Party or to the shortening of the Session, although the Irish Party were as anxious as anyone to get away. With regard to the form of the action which the Government intended to take against the House of Lords and the time at which that action would be taken, they were just as wise as they were at the commencement of the discussion. He considered that the Irish Party had been treated by the Government with scorn. Whatever they might be prepared to suffer for their country, they were not prepared to submit to be treated with scorn, either by the Government or by anybody else. It was now two years since they had been promised Home Rule by the Liberal Party; and whilst the Home Rule Bill and every other measure which had been introduced for the benefit of Ireland had only been sent up to the House of Lords to be rejected by them, the Liberal Party were using the political momentum supplied by the Irish Question to pass Bills for England and Scotland. The Government had made an arrangement with the Tory Party, whom they and the Irish Members had been sent to Parliament to overbear, that they should come down and vote supplies for the maintenance of the House of Lords against the will of the Irish people and of their own supporters.
§ SIR W. LAWSONstrongly supported the appeal which had been made to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to make some definite statement as to what course the Government intended to take in order to establish the predominance of the House of Commons over the House of Lords.
§ SIR W. HARCOURT; Perhaps I may be allowed to point out that there is no Motion before the House.
§ MR. SEXTONI intended to move to report Progress, and ask leave to sit again. I will do so now.
THE CHAIRMANI must point out to the hon. Gentleman that as he has already moved to report Progress he is not entitled to do so again.
§ DR. TANNERThen, Sir, I move that you do report Progress and ask leave to sit again.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Dr. Tanner.)
§ SIR W. HARCOURTIf hon. Gentlemen insist on pressing this Motion I shall not feel myself justified any longer in opposing it. I may say that nothing has been further from my thoughts than to be discourteous or unconciliatory to any hon. Member, and I entirely disclaim any such intention. With regard to the request of the hon. Baronet (Sir W. Lawson), that I should make some statement as to when the Government intend to assert the predominance of the House of Commons over the House of Lords, I submit that it is unreasonable to ask me to make such a statement at this hour in the morning (3.45). I can only repeat that the policy which the Government have adopted is the policy which was laid down by the late Prime Minister (Mr. Gladstone) in the last speech which he delivered in this House. To that policy the Government intend to adhere, but they must be left to determine the manner in which and the time at which they will endeavour to carry it out. I feel that under the circumstances I should not be justified in offering any further opposition to the Motion to report Progress.
§ Question put, and agreed to.
§ Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.