ADJOURNMENT. (Hansard, 12 March 1894)

§ MR. T. M. HEALY (Louth, N.)
On a point of Order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, do I understand that my hon. Friend the Member for Kerry is out of Order?

* MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER
No; but when it is 12 o'clock it is my duty to call attention to the fact that a Motion for Adjournment lapses. Since 12 o'clock this Motion has been made again, and the hon. Gentleman is now in Order.

§ MR. SEXTON
I wish to ask, Sir, in virtue of what authority has this change been made? There are Standing Orders concerning the introduction of 131 Bills. If the Standing Orders are not adequate let them be altered by a vote of the House. The powers of Mr. Speaker are already large enough, and I, for one, shall not consent that the rights of Members shall be altered in the manner proposed. The only information I was able to obtain on the matter is contained in a Blue Paper which is available in the Vote Office. It states— Ballot for the introduction of Bills. Mr. Speaker proposes to save the time of the House, and then follows a description of his scheme. It is clear that the whole scheme on which the Clerks are proceeding is the scheme of Mr. Speaker. I protest against any alteration in the procedure or any limitation of the rights of Members of the House at the pleasure or at the suggestion of any functionary, however high or capable he may be, and I acknowledge at once the capability of Mr. Speaker. I hold, and I think my hon. Friends will hold, that any Bill proceeded with in this House, not in virtue of a Standing Order, but in virtue of a suggestion or proposal of Mr. Speaker, is an invalid Bill. We shall take occasion to press that view on the House, and we shall take occasion to invite the opinion of the House that Mr. Speaker is not entitled to interfere with the rights of Members in this way. That can only be done by a vote of the House. I wish to ask the Leader of the House whether the Government have sanctioned this proceeding, and in what mode they intend to submit the action of Mr. Speaker to the judgment of the House?

§ SIR W. HARCOURT
I am sure that the House will not desire this question to be decided in the absence of Mr. Speaker, whose indisposition we all regret. So far as my own knowledge of this matter goes, it is very limited. I remember a question being put to Mr. Speaker in the House on the subject, and it was put on the ground of the convenience of the House. I did not understand Mr. Speaker to lay down any new Rule upon the subject at all. Some observations were made about the practice which has grown up, about which there is a variety of opinion—that is to say, a combination of a number of gentlemen who desire to obtain precedence for 132 particular Bills. I confess that I have never objected to that practice, because it secures Bills in which a large number of hon. Members are interested being introduced. For present purposes, however, the only question seems to me to be to inquire what is the lawful practice according to the established Rules, and that we cannot properly do in the absence of Mr. Speaker. I am satisfied that Mr. Speaker will tell us on his return that he had no desire to alter the Rules of the House except at the expressed wish of the House. As to whether the alteration is within the Rules of the House, I do not venture an opinion. Certainly my own view would be in accordance with that of the hon. Member opposite. In the old days, perhaps, combinations among Members did not exist, but I fail to see how the existence of such combinations could alter the law on the subject. Undoubtedly up to now an hon. Member was not called upon to name his Bill until he had ballotted. On the Whole, however, I think that hon. Members will agree with me that it will be better to wait until the return of Mr. Speaker before we proceed to discuss the matter further.

§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR
I think the advice that has been given to the House by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House, that we should wait until the return of Mr. Speaker before discussing this question further, is wise and sound. We can hardly decide in the absence of Mr. Speaker what would be the proper course to be taken with regard to a modification of the Rules of the House. I may say, however, that this matter was brought under the attention of Mr. Speaker on a former occasion. No doubt great inconvenience and waste of time prevailed under the old system of ballotting, and it was suggested that the ballotting should take place in a Committee Room upstairs. The hon. Member for Kerry at the time pointed out that if this plan were carried into effect the result would be that the combinations of which the hon. Gentleman has spoken would be impossible. Mr. Speaker's reply was that that practice was not in accordance with the ancient usages of the House.

§ MR. SEXTON
I also pointed out that, apart from the combination, if an 133 hon. Member put down his name for a particular Bill, and if another Member, who put down that Bill also was first called, the second Member would find that his day would be lost.

§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR
I had forgotten that the hon. Gentleman had made that additional point, but I am sure he will agree that his objection was based substantially on the ground that the proposed alteration would prevent those combinations which we have known during the last few years. Mr. Speaker remarked that the practice which the hon. Member for North Kerry said would be imperilled was not a practice in accordance with the ancient usages of this House. When the Leader of the House holds that there is much to be said in favour of a plan which gives precedence to Bills in which a large number of Members are interested, the question arises whether that which is so held to be desirable is attained in the best way by these loose methods of organisation which give an advantage to those who are organised as against those who are not so organised. That is a matter which can be debated if it comes up for discussion. But it would be better to defer the discussion till we have Mr. Speaker in the Chair. The solo object Mr. Speaker has in view is the convenience of the House, and he can have no desire to run counter to the traditions which have hitherto regulated our proceedings.

§ MR. T. M. HEALY
said, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Manchester was not going to include the Irish Party in those "cruel organisations" which had been referred to in another place. He very much regretted the cause of Mr. Speaker's absence, but with very great respect to him he would submit that this was a matter with which Mr. Speaker had nothing whatever to do. Mr. Speaker had no more authority to alter the law of Parliament than the humblest Member who sat in it. In 1886 he made a proposal in connection with the introduction of Bills that the practice of calling a Member before the Bar of the House, and the Member walking, bowing, up the floor of the House, should be abolished, and he was told that that practice could not be dispensed with without a Standing Order. 134 If they could not dispense with bowing and scraping without a Standing Order, how could they abrogate the rights of Members, which was practically what the new Rule would do? The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House had suggested that they should wait for the return of Mr. Speaker, which he hoped would be speedy. he would agree to that if the Ballot was postponed in the meantime. He would say for himself that, in his judgment, whenever the Liberal Party were in Office there was a constant tendency of officials to make proposals affecting Irish Members which they would not dare to make when the Tories were in power. The officials relied upon their acquiescence or silence, or something of that kind when the Liberals were in Office, but when the Tories were in Office they never attempted it. This was a question which affected the Irish Members in a most vital degree. They were only 80 at most, while the other Parties in the House were each about 300 strong. It was hinted that they were highly organised. Was it their fault that if the other Parties in the House, who had a Government of their own countrymen, and were present on the spot in their own land, and were rich and well equipped, were badly organised that the Irish Party were to be denied the use of the only method by which through 10 or 15 years they had advanced their cause? The proposal was put forward, forsooth, to save the time of the House. Nobody was more anxious to save the time of the House than he was, and he was willing to admit that the system of having the Ballot in the House might perhaps be altered; but be would submit that no more loose or irregular way of altering the law of Parliament had ever been attempted than the way that was taken in the present instance. The document setting forth the change was not even signed by Mr. Speaker. It said that "Mr. Speaker proposes." Mr. Speaker had no power of proposal, and he was quite sure that if Mr. Speaker, who had so often extended his protection to Irish Members, knew how strong a feeling was created by the matter, he would be the last person in the world to enforce it in that way. It might do to give Mr. Speaker power 135 to make a change where all Parties acquiesced; but if there was any objection to the proposal, and Mr. Speaker was allowed to make the change, it would be reducing him to the position of the American Speaker, who was merely a member of a Party organisation, which it was most undesirable he should be. He felt glad that the Chancellor of the Exchequer on his first night as Loader of the House had thrown out amicable proposals. His hon. Friends would never have taken up the time of the House if they had been received in a proper spirit; but they were told by the Clerks at the Table that their notices were waste paper, and that they would be given to the servants of the House. That was not the way to treat a body of 80 men, and their protest was made in a respectful, formal, and Parliamentary manner. It had been so received by the Government, and he was sure that had Mr. Speaker been in the Chair he would have been the first to recognise this. He thanked Mr. Deputy Speaker for the opportunity he had afforded them to debate this matter, and he was sure that a change could be made which would accommodate the general views prevailing in that and every quarter of the House.

§ MR. LABOUCHERE (Northampton)
said, they ought to have it made quite clear whether the Ballot was to be postponed or not.

§ SIR W. HARCOURT
Unquestionably the arrangement suggested was for the convenience of the House, but it has given rise to some misunderstanding. Of course, the taking of the Ballot outside the House is a departure from the Rules; but it is acquiesced in for convenience, and with no intention on the part of anyone to deprive any Member of the rights he possesses. The only solution I can see is to revert to the Ballot in the House, and to abandon this particular method against which complaint has been made. I will therefore suggest that it might be better to take the Ballot on Thursday. I believe that this will remove the difficulty, though I should have preferred to see Mr. Speaker present, in order that he might render the House his assistance.

§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR
I ask the Government to take into consideration the fact that a large number of my hon. Friends have gone home. I think the 136 right hon. Gentleman should at least give ample notice to all those who are concerned, so that those hon. Members who have accepted the procedure provided by Mr. Speaker should not find themselves aggrieved.

§ SIR W. HARCOURT
I think that the best way would be for the subject to be mentioned again before Public Business to-morrow, when every hon. Member will have an opportunity of considering the question. It will be necessary to propose a Motion to this effect:— That no Notice for Leave to bring in Bills shall be handed in before Thursday next, because otherwise the ancient right of Members to move Notices of Bills would arise to-morrow, and cut out any people who were not in the House.

§ MR. DALZIEL (Kirkcaldy, &c.)
asked whether the Notices already handed in had been rejected?

* MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER
They were rejected, but I understand that they were kept.

§ MR. SEXTON
Mine was not kept; it was given back to me.

§ MR. CHANCE (Kilkenny, S.)
Mine was not kept, because it was rejected at the Table.

§ SIR W. HARCOURT
The Ballot took place outside the House subject to the new Rule, but the whole matter can come up on the Notice of Motion tomorrow, and be discussed. I may also take occasion to say that I will propose a Motion to suspend the Twelve o'Clock Rule to-morrow night in the hope that, if the House is so disposed, it may finish the Debate on the Address.

§ DR. TANNER (Cork Co., Mid.)
said, he had handed in a Notice at the Table of a Bill for the amendment of the Labourers (Ireland) Act with regard to allotments, a matter which he had been prosecuting for a couple of years. He had handed in that Notice in the usual form; but he was told that it was absolutely out of Order, and that he would have to go out and alter it before it could be accepted at the Table. He should say that he never felt so insulted in all his life.