ADJOURNMENT—WINTER RECESS. (Hansard, 12 January 1894)

§ SIR H. MAXWELL (Wigton)
said* he had no intention of intervening between the House and the right hon. Gentleman's Motion, but, as a Scotch Member, he desired to enter a protest in the strongest possible manner that could find Parliamentary expression against the way in which Scotch Members had been treated during the present unprecedented Session. They had been told by the Prime Minister, as far as they could hear him, that they were to be brought back there on February 12 solely for the purpose of considering the Sea Fisheries Regulation (Scotland) Bill. That Bill was brought forward in April last, and dangled before the eyes of Scotch Members as the one boon, the one reward, to which they had to look in return for their support to the Government during the six months' Debate on the Irish Home Rule, and the two months' Debate on the Parish Councils Bills. Toward the close of the Debates on the Parish Councils Bill the Scottish Members were promised a Wednesday for the discussion of the Sea Fisheries Bill, in which the Members on both sides of the House took a deep and practical interest. What was the result? They were permitted, by the kind consideration of Her Majesty's Government, to talk about their own affairs for three hours last Wednesday, and then they were ordered to desist, in order that a discussion might take place on the Featherstone riots. He thought that, after consenting to adjourn the Debate for this purpose, after having been promised an entire Wednesday Sitting—

§ MR. MARJORIBANKS
No, never.

§ SIR H. MAXWELL
said, that words were sometimes capable of ambiguous construction, but he himself never heard words which conveyed a clearer impression that they were to have a whole Sitting on a Wednesday. Nor was a Wednesday Sitting too much for this most important measure, because it was largely amended in another place, not by Members of the Opposition, but by supporters of Her Majesty's Government.

§ MR. MARJORIBANKS
No.

§ SIR H. MAXWELL
said, he could I only say that a very large addition was made to the Bill.

§ MR. MARJORIBANKS
No, no.

§ SIR H. MAXWELL
said, he would not pursue the subject further. At all 1475 events, when the Bill came to this House there were 153 lines of Amendments standing in the name of the Secretary for Scotland, and he understood there were more forthcoming. How were they treated now? They were told that the House would reassemble on the 12th February for Scottish business. The 12th February was a Monday, and in order to be in their places to discuss the Sea Fisheries Bill many of the Scottish Members would have to sacrifice the Saturday holiday, as well as the Sunday and Monday. He was quite aware this appeared a light matter to Members of the Government, inasmuch as many of their Scottish supporters were Scottish Members only in name. Some of the most distinguished of them were not Scottish by birth. They did not reside in Scotland. Others were, indeed, Scotsmen by birth, but they found in the Metropolis a more convenient habitation. Of course, to them it was equally convenient to meet on Monday as on any other day of the week; but to those who were Scotsmen, who lived in Scotland, who had their residences, their relatives, their business, aye, and he would be frank enough to say their amusements, in Scotland it was a matter of great importance that they should be called upon to shorten their very brief holiday by two entire days. He would not move any Amendment, but he would content himself with having entered a very strong protest against the way Scottish Members were treated at the hands of a Government the head of whom was the Member for the Metropolitan County of Scotland.

§ MR. W. E. GLADSTONE
I am sorry that the hon. Member has found it necessary to make this complaint. He says that Monday is not the most convenient day for the meeting of Parliament, when the business is the business of the Scottish Members, and another day might have been taken. But if another day had been taken, it would have been our duty to propose, not that it should be Monday the 12th February, but that it should be Thursday the 8th February. Now, I should like to know whether the hon. Gentleman desires, in the interests of the Scottish Members, that Thursday the 8th February should be substituted for Monday the 12th February? It would not be justifiable 1476 with reference to the general business of the House, to propose a later day for the business relating to the Sea Fisheries Bill. I am afraid I must say that it is a matter of necessity, as far as a judgment can be formed, to meet on Monday the 12th, because so far as we can anticipate there will be, or may be, important business to transact in connection with any Amendments which might be made by the House of Lords in the Local Government Bill. According to usage it will be necessary that before those Amendments are considered they should be printed. That would have to be done by order of the House, and for the purpose of giving that order it is necessary that the House should meet on Monday, and if the House meets on Monday it is right that we should endeavour to discuss the business that is before the House on the Orders of the Day. I do not think that we deserve the reproaches that the hon. Gentleman has put upon us. We adjusted the arrangements connected with this Bill in such a manner that the Bill passed through this House virtually as an unopposed and uncontested measure; but it was the pleasure of the House of Lords, and not the supporters of the Government in the House of Lords, to use the power which they possess for the purpose of altering greatly the character of the Bill, and to compel the Government to call the attention of the House to deal with it. It is no wonder if, at the close of this enormously protracted Session—and with the daily pressure in which we have been engaged—it is no wonder we have not been able to make the best arrangements which would suit the convenience of the Scottish Members.

§ MR. GOSCHEN (St. George's, Hanover Square)
I have only one word to say as to what has passed. The Government have accepted with pleasure some of the improvements which have been made by the House of Lords. I believe errors have been discovered in the Bill, and I think it is a fortunate thing that it has been revised by the House of Lords, and it is scarcely fair to attribute to the House of Lords a desire to delay it.

§ THE SECRETARY FOE SCOTLAND (Sir G. TREVELYAN,) Glasgow, Bridgeton
I am bound to say this—that no serious Amendments made by the 1477 House of Lords have been accepted, with the single exception of the Order being laid on the Table. I do not say that is an important matter. It is a concession to the House of Lords. With regard to the long complicated Amendments which the Government have put on the Paper, these are in the place of the important and absolutely necessary and vital provisions of the Bill which the House of Lords have cut out. We have done our best to replace these provisions in a shape in which the House of Lords may accept them; but there is not one important provision of the Bill, one vital provision, which the Government do not intend to replace.

MR. ANSTRUTHER&c.) (St. Andrews,
said, he did not wish to pursue this matter in detail, but he was afraid the House would gather the impression from the remarks of the hon. Baronet the Member for Wigtownshire, and from the interruption of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Berwickshire, that he was inaccurate in substance in representing that Amendments had been made on the Bill at the instance of supporters of the Government in the House of Lords. The position was this—that, with regard to Clause 6, to which the Secretary for Scotland had just referred, the whole of the clause as originally drawn was omitted in another place on the Motion of the noble Lord who occupied a subordinate office in the Government. That noble Lord might fairly be represented as a supporter of the Government in another place. It was owing to the error of the original proposals of the Government that the important Amendments now standing on the Paper in the name of the Secretary for Scotland were obliged to be moved and considered at the expense of public time.

§ MR. MARJORIBANKS
said, that the Amendment suggested by the noble Lord—Lord Playfair—in the House of Lords was adopted simply from the desire of the Government to conciliate the House of Lords.