MILITARY LANDS ACT (1892) AMENDMENT BILL. (Hansard, 3 August 1896)

§ MR. HERBERT LEWIS (Flint Boroughs)
rose to second the Motion for the rejection of the Bill made, he understood, when the Measure was last under discussion. The House had received no explanation of the meaning of the Bill from the Under Secretary for War, except that it dealt with shooting ranges and other details. He had no objection to Volunteers in every part of the country, where necessary, being provided with proper rifle ranges, provided it was done by a proper authority; but it appeared to him that 1408 this Bill somewhat expanded the principle which had been adopted, to some extent very improperly, in the Bill passed in the closing days of a previous Session, at two or three in the morning. The Volunteer force was an Imperial force, and not a local force. He thought it ought to be treated as an Imperial force, and he did not think that any duties ought to be cast on local authorities in regard to it such as were contemplated by this Bill. It might be said that the duties were optional; but those optional duties often became obligatory, and it was exceedingly difficult at times for local authorities to resist the demands made upon them. The first clause of the Bill was very wide in its scope, and imposed on local authorities duties of a character in relation to an Imperial force which they ought not to be called upon to bear. What was the policy of the present Government as between the Imperial and local authority? Its policy was by means of subventions to the local authority to aid that authority in its work, but in this Bill the process appeared to be reversed. While the work ought to be done and paid for by the Imperial authority, this Bill conferred powers on the local authority to do and pay for work which ought to be done by the Imperial authority.

§ MR. DALZIEL
said he did not intend to prolong the Debate, but he rose to make a Motion which he hoped would be accepted by the Leader of the House. He submitted to the right hon. Gentleman that when the Twelve o'clock Rule was suspended, he distinctly stated that it was not his intention to ask the House to sit for any considerable period after 12 o'clock. The House had been dealing with a Bill for an hour and a-half beyond 12 o'clock, and it was not fair to ask the House to go into a Debate on another Bill at half-past one in the morning. Up to the present there had been practically no discussion on this Bill, and he submitted to the Leader of the House and the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill, that if they were anxious to pass the Bill, they would make greater headway with it if they agreed to adjourn the Debate now, in order that there might not be an all-night Sitting every night. He begged to move "That the Debate be now adjourned."

§ MR. J. P. FARRELL
seconded the Motion.

§ THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY
hoped the hon. Gentleman would not press the Amendment. The hon. Gentleman had not quite accurately remembered the purport of his remarks in moving the suspension of the Twelve o'clock Rule. He was quite right in indicating that his hope was that the House would not be asked to have all-night Sittings perpetually, and that no unnecessary or undue strain would be thrown on Members of the House. He would remind the hon. Gentleman that the Bill was brought up in conformity with the unanimous desire of a Committee which sat during the last Parliament in which Gentlemen on the other side of the House were in a majority, and he thought that a Measure so modest in its dimensions and so useful in its object, fathered as it was by a Committee, might very well receive a Second Reading without any prolonged discussion.

§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGE (Carnarvon Boroughs)
contended that the House was getting into the habit of passing these Military Bills without any discussion at all. There were grave objections to the Bill. Considerable progress had been made with the Scotch Bill, and he appealed that this might not be allowed to stand over.

§ DR. TANNER (Cork, Mid)
asked why, if this was a non-controversial Bill, they should try to force it through at that time of night. Great exasperation was caused by trying to force Bills on against the wish of a large number of Members?

§ THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY
rose in his place and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put." [Cheers.]

§ * MR. SPEAKER
stated that he thought the Ayes had it, and on his decision being challenged, it appeared to him that the Division was frivolously claimed, and he accordingly directed first the Ayes and then the Noes to stand up in their places, and 20 Members having stood up for the Noes, Mr. SPEAKER declared that the Ayes had it.

§ * Mr. SPEAKER
stated that he thought the Ayes had it, and on his decision being challenged, it appeared to him that the Division was frivolously claimed, and he accordingly directed the Ayes to stand up in their places, and all the Members on the Ministerial side, numbering about 100, having stood up, and only twenty Noes when called upon, Mr. SPEAKER declared the Ayes had it.

§ MR. DALZIEL
On a point of Order, Sir—[Ministerial cries of "Order!"] We have only one Speaker. [Cheers]

§ * MR. SPEAKER
It is extremely irregular for the hon. Member to rise to address me, and then to address Gentlemen opposite. [Ministerial cheers.]

§ MR. DALZIEL
I express my extreme regret. It certainly was not intended as any disrespect to you, Sir, but the provocation given—[Cries of "Order, order!"]. I now beg to ask you, on a point of Order, whether it is not the case that, on 20 Members rising, a Division should, in the ordinary course, take place.

§ * MR. SPEAKER
No; there is no such Rule. [Ministerial cheers.] The Ayes have it. [Ministerial cheers.]